[whatwg] @aria-labelledby | Re: @generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt, figure with figcaption

Jonas Sicking jonas at sicking.cc
Tue Jun 18 03:57:23 PDT 2013

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Steve Faulkner
<faulkner.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 07.06.2013 um 23:13 schrieb Ian Hickson:
>> >> <img src="..." title="image">
>> >
>> > If you have a caption from the user (as opposed to replacement text),
>> then
>> > this is a perfectly valid option. It's as valid as the <figure> case, and
>> > means the same thing.
>> >
>> > [...]
> the above statement is bad advice:
> browsers map title to the accessible name in accessibility APIs when alt is
> absent, so
> in the following cases:
> <img src="..." title="poot">
> <img src="..." alt="poot">
> the accessible name is 'poot'.
> it is only when there is an accessible name already provided that title is
> used as an accessible description:
> <img src="..." alt="poot" title="description of poot">
> Also note that as per the W3C HTML spec, use of the title without an alt is
> non conforming[1] as it does not represent a caption for an image and as
> you point out is hidden from a variety of users due to a long and
> consistent history of poor implementation.


Does the spec still require that if an implementation encounters an
image with a title but without an alt to present that to users with
and without AT in a useful way?

I.e. is the difference between the W3C and WHATWG versions here just a
difference in authoring requirements? Or also a difference in
implementations requirements?

/ Jonas

More information about the whatwg mailing list