editorial: remove vague "meaningful" and parenthetical example #2069
Conversation
Following up on #2062.
pkra
added
the
editorial
pkra
changed the title
| @@ -5987,7 +5987,7 @@ <h4>Plain HTML or Polyfill DOM Result of the MathML Quadratic Formula</h4> | |||
| <span> Sample Content <a href="...">let's go!</a> </span> | |||
| </pre> | |||
| <p>In HTML, the <code><img></code> <a>element</a> is treated as a single entity regardless of the type of image file. Consequently, using <code>role="none"</code> or <code>role="presentation"</code> on an HTML <code>img</code> is equivalent to using <code>aria-hidden="true"</code>. In order to make the image contents accessible, authors can embed the object using an <code><object></code> or <code><iframe></code> <a>element</a>, or use inline <abbr title="Scalable Vector Graphics">SVG</abbr> code, and follow the accessibility guidelines for the image content.</p> | |||
| <p>Authors SHOULD NOT provide a meaningful text alternative (for example, use <code>alt=""</code> in HTML) when the <code>none</code>/<code>presentation</code> role is applied to an image.</p> | |||
| <p>Authors SHOULD NOT provide a text alternative when the <code>none</code>/<code>presentation</code> role is applied to an image.</p> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure that this was trying to say that.
I think it was saying don't use alt="something"
But it is fine (although redundant) to use alt="" with role="none" as they essentially do the same thing. Indeed the example below does exactly that.
| <p>Authors SHOULD NOT provide a text alternative when the <code>none</code>/<code>presentation</code> role is applied to an image.</p> | |
| <p>Authors SHOULD NOT provide a non empty text alternative when the <code>none</code>/<code>presentation</code> role is applied to an image.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I take the point regarding the following example but since this will get flagged by nu validator already, we should perhaps remove it.
I find the double negation unnecessarily complicated. Since empty aria-label cause validation errors, I think it wouldn't reduce confusion as much so I think it's better as is. But it's not really that important to me - happy to merge the suggestion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW I don't think alt="" role="none" should fail the validator. I think it should be okay to do this.
It should also be fine to do role="none" or alt=""
E.g., nu validator flags it as error "An img element which has an alt attribute whose value is the empty string must not have a role attribute." |
Following up on #2062.
Closes #2068
In this negation, it seems very vague (what is non-meaningful-but-not-empty alt?) and I think a clear "SHOULD NOT add alt" is better.
Otherwise, if there's a use case for "non-meaningful text alternative" then perhaps this can be added to the parenthetical example.
To further reduce confusion, the parenthical example using an empty alt attribute was also removed.
Preview | Diff