WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Image copyright info - where to add it?

for

From: Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez
Date: Nov 16, 2014 8:34AM

Hi Steve,

Thanks again.

Silvia

On 15 November 2014 19:22, Steve Faulkner < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Hi Silvia, suggest using this pattern for example:
>
> <figure role="group" aria-label="Figure X (X being a unique identifier if
> there are multiple photos in the same doc)">
> <img alt="some text">
> <figcaption>Man reading a book in the park.
> © Senses Studio</figcaption>
> </figure>
>
> Through the use of ARIA the visually associated image and caption are
> identified and programmatically associated.
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>;
>
> On 15 November 2014 18:00, Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez <
> <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Thanks for the prompt response and direct reference. I see, however, that
> > "authors must not include more than one main element in a document". What
> > happens if the document has many images? (I am not yet super familiarised
> > with the new recommendation, so please accept my apologies if I am asking
> > too many silly questions).
> >
> > Related to this... In the last version of the doc "HTML5: Techniques for
> > providing useful text alternatives", it says that the figure and
> figcaption
> > elements are not currently accessibility supported by the majority of
> > browsers. I understand from the same doc that, from now on, the alt
> > attribute should be only used to label the image somehow. But the truth
> is
> > that many of the webs out there probably still use it with the same
> purpose
> > as before (as a textual replacement).
> >
> > I was actually looking for a more practical solution from the point of
> view
> > of the end user, i.e., is it meaningful to have that info as part of the
> > image description? Or, if the link type "license" would not exist (let's
> > put it that way), would be "natural" for a screen reader user to hear
> that
> > kind of info?
> >
> > Thanks again!
> >
> > Silvia
> >
> >
> >
> > On 15 November 2014 17:54, Steve Faulkner < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > See http://www.w3.org/TR/html/links.html#link-type-license
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > SteveF
> > > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>;
> > >
> > > On 15 November 2014 16:44, Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez <
> > > <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > Do you think that it is appropriate to include copyright information
> in
> > > the
> > > > image text alternative? I have seen many websites doing so, even
> after
> > an
> > > > appropriate text replacement for the image (e.g., alt="Man reading a
> > book
> > > > in the park. Photo: Jean Dupond" or alt="Man reading a book in the
> > > park.
> > > > © Senses Studio). I was wondering if this was considered a good
> > practice,
> > > > or if we should rather include it:
> > > > - as a title attribute's value?
> > > > - in the main body of the page?
> > > > - as an image caption?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance for your comments! Any insights on this would be
> > highly
> > > > welcomed.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Silvia
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >