[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: New properties for StatusNotifierItem: Accessible Label (1/3)]]

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Thursday, March 3, 2011, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Aaron J. Seigo wrote on 03/03/11 06:15:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2011, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> >...
> >
> >> But in general, while all interactive graphic-only
> >> elements should have accessible labels, not all of them need tooltips.
> > 
> > example?
> 
> Icon-only labels at opposite ends of a slider: for example, muted at one
> end and maximum-volume at the other, or low-zoom at one end and
> high-zoom at the other. The icons should have accessible labels, but to
> a sighted user they are obvious enough that tooltips would be silly. (If
> they weren't obvious enough, the correct fix would be to make the labels
> plain text, as slider labels often are, not to give them tooltips.)

i was hoping for examples relevant to the topic at hand, namely status 
notifiers / app indicators. :)

> >> In a survey by Opera Software of 3,219,487 Web pages that used the
> >> <img> element, 2,520,939 of them (78%) used alt=, while 367,132 (11%)
> >> used title=.
> >> <http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-images-elements-and-formats/#im
> >> g>
> >> 
> >> As far as I know, there are no public statistics on how often <img>
> >> elements have distinct alt= and title= values. But we can conclude, at
> >> least, that Web authors care enough about accessibility to provide
> >> accessible equivalents most of the time.
> > 
> > after years of getting it pounded into their heads and with the added
> > bonus that this text is often used for things like tooltips ... they
> > still fail 11% of the time.
> >
> >...
> 
> That is because the <img> "API" was apparently designed without any
> thought for accessibility.

true ... but:

> If the syntax had been <img src="...">alternate</img>, it would have
> been much more obvious that an alternate was expected and what it was
> for. Sure, some people would still have routinely written
> <img src="..."></img>. But fewer people would have, because it would
> have been more obvious that that was missing something than that
> <img src="..."> is missing something.

<img src="http://idontcare.com/haha.png" />

:)

most API is abusable, and app developers will do just that. a truly crappy 
part of reality.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20110303/6ab2dc5d/attachment.sig