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

[Steve Faulkner]

Hi Jonas


> 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?


authoring requirements only

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 18 June 2013 11:57, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Steve,
>
> 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
>