On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:57 AM, Jeff Seager wrote:
...
Among all literate people, I believe there is a longstanding
expectation that pictures are accompanied by meaningful descriptions
(usually below the image, but often to one side). The absence of image
captioning seems to me to be an oversight, or at least an overlooked
possibility, in the HTML/XHTML standards. As I was taught, a proper
caption should not describe the picture (as ALT should), but
complement or elucidate the information presented by the graphic.
alt= should not describe a picture, but rather be a text alternative,
because a description is a non-sequitur in a non-visual medium.
(Unless, perhaps, the UA precedes it with the phrase "And if you
weren't so blind you could see an image here that shows...":-)
Anyway, I support the idea of a caption *element* to accompany images.
This would have two benefits over an attribute:
1. It could contain markup, which an attribute cannot.
2. With a for= attribute, it could apply to an image elsewhere in the
document, which would be useful for the print medium. For example:
<p>
<legend for="classphoto"><i class="printonly">Top left:</i>
The class of 2006.</legend>
<legend for="bandseniors"><i class="printonly">Top right:</i>
Simone with her parents on graduation day.</legend>
</p>
(For the screen medium, ideally UAs would place a caption adjacent
to the relevant image, regardless of where the caption occurred in
the document.)
I suggest that this element behave in the opposite way from alt=:
whereas alt= should be presented only if the image itself is *not*
presented, the caption element should be presented only if the image
itself *is* presented. Otherwise there would be the same problem with
non-sequiturs in non-visual media as there is with descriptive alt=.
--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
