Subject: alt text for atom:icon/logo

From: Pete Brunet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:57:46 -0500

Back in January when I started looking into Atom and accessibility the 
following exchange took place:

JS: atom:icon, atom:logo don't have title or type attributes
BS: <atom:title> and <atom:subtitle> could be considered the accessible 
alternative for the icon and logo. Most modern accessibility guidelines 
recommend against providing alternative text for logos and icons when that 
alternative text would significantly duplicate content available elsewhere 
in the document.
BS: A title attribute is a bad idea because human-readable text shouldn't 
be represented with attributes. If it is needed then it should be a text 
construct. 
JS: True, however, while unlikely, the title and summary can each contain 
complex markup. If accessibility guidelines were to suggest using those 
elements as the alternate text for the icon/logo, then the guidelines 
would need to suggest appropriate content restrictions for each or else 
specify a processing model so markup can be dealt with appropriately.
BS: Right. Restrictions on titles and summaries are needed even for users 
without disabilities, like we discussed a while back when we were debating 
whether Atom processors should support HTML/XHTML content in titles. 

I looked around a bit and couldn't find any uses of atom:icon or 
atom:logo.  In any event, if there is no valuable information conveyed by 
the icon/logo such as when the information is unimportant or redundant 
then it should not have "alt text".  This is done on web pages with 
Alt="". 

Is it always the case that the icon/logo is only "eye candy" and that the 
useful information is what is found in atom:title/subtitle?  If that's the 
case I don't see a need for any changes to atom:icon/logo.

Pete Brunet
                                                                          
IBM Accessibility Architecture and Development
11501 Burnet Road, MS 9022E004, Austin, TX 78758
Voice: (512) 838-4594, Cell: (512) 689-4155
Ionosphere: WS4G

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:05:17 -0700

Pretty much.  I'm quite certain that no one has done any kind of 
comprehensive study on the uses of icon/logo but I think it's safe to 
say that they have very little functional value.

- James

Pete Brunet wrote:
> [snip]
> Is it always the case that the icon/logo is only "eye candy" and that 
> the useful information is what is found in atom:title/subtitle?  If 
> that's the case I don't see a need for any changes to atom:icon/logo.
> 
> *Pete Brunet*
>

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:31:32 +1000

> case I don't see a need for any changes to atom:icon/logo.

unlike images embedded into web pages, the icon/logo for the feed doesn't
have separate meaning from the title/subtitle for the feed ... so I'd say
it's role is 'eyecandy' as you say.

e.

---

From: Aristotle Pagaltzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 07:47:16 +0200

* Pete Brunet <[email-masked]> [2008-05-29 22:10]:
> BS: <atom:title> and <atom:subtitle> could be considered the
> accessible alternative for the icon and logo.

That is kind of backwards. The main content *is* atom:title and
atom:subtitle. The atom:icon and atom:logo are in fact secondary,
purely graphical representations:

> Is it always the case that the icon/logo is only "eye candy"
> and that the useful information is what is found in
> atom:title/subtitle?

The only purpose of those elements is visual branding.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>