WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image

for

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Jul 28, 2018 12:40AM

The HTML spec includes advice/examples along these lines:

Images of text
https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#images-of-text
Inline images
https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#inline-images

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 28 July 2018 at 05:25, Birkir R. Gunnarsson < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> I was one of the people criticizing role="text".
> If you present something as an image to some users you should present
> it to all users.
> Suppose you feel the need to use a heart icon to express your undying
> love for nacho fries:
> "I heart nacho fries"
> ("heart" being an image of a heart"), you chose a certain style / approach.
> You can make it accessible by adding alt="love" if you want the
> literal meaning or alt="heart" if you want to inform a screen reader
> user that a heart icon stands for love (or, in this case, lust).
> Yes, the screen reader will add the word "graphics" or "image" to the
> sentence (depending on which one you use). A screen reader user is
> used to that, it's the standard for how an icon is presented.
>
> If you wanted to simply express your love as text you could have just
> written "I love nacho fries". The cognitive load for a screen reader
> user is no greater than that of other users who see text mixed with an
> image.
>
> If you are really worried mark the image as presentational and replace
> it with a visually hidden text,, or tell your content person that
> mixing text and images like that can present a problem to screen
> reader users; possibly others as well, what about users with cognitive
> impairments, they may benefit or be harmed by this approach.
> We don't need ARIA to fix what is not really a problem. I have yet to
> see a convincing example where this role can be used for a purpose
> other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen reader.
>
>
> On 7/27/18, Duff Johnson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> >>> But role="text" is not a
> >>> documented role (yet?).
> >>
> >> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it should be
> >> implemented.
> >
> > Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.
> >
> > Or… add an "ActualText" attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)
> >
> > Duff.
> > > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > >