[4733] Inconsistency in the way Smileys use the "Alt" field on the smiley image

[akc42]

Due to a comment from a blind person on my site, I have just noticed an inconsistency in the use of the "alt" field in the image tag placed into messages by the forum software.  I am using SMF2.0RC3 - although I have just checked the upgrade download for RC4, and it doesn't appear to have changed in that area.

Basically, in a message, the "alt" attribute of the smiley image contains the tag used to represent the smiley in the message.  The smiley description is placed into the "title" attribute.  However in the post dialog box where all the smileys are shown for inserting into a post, the "alt" and "title" both contain the description.  This is inconsistent.

Given the comment from the blind person, I would prefer that in the message displays the alt attribute matched the title attribute and held the description.

To do this I think line 2481 in Sources/Subs.php should be changed to use $smileysdesc[$i] rather than $smileysfrom[$i]

[Kindred]

actually, I don't consider this a bug.   replacing a non-functional image with the ascii equivalent smile is the correct behavior, hence the use of the : ( in the alt tag in place of . This same replacement is done for WAP mod.

in the post dialog box, the alt/title are both used to make sure people know what emotion they are posting.

[akc42]

The blind user is using the JAWS screen reader which reads them out the alt tag when encountering the image.

I can accept that its correct to display the code in the alt attribute, but in that case I think the consistent thing to do is also to display these codes in the alt attribute on the post form.  The title attribute makes sure that sighted people know what they are posting - it is the difficulty that my blind user has that raises this issue.

[Antechinus]

Good point. We'll get onto it. a11y FTW.

[Antechinus]

Oh and if this blind member of yours has any other pet hates about the software tell them we'd like to hear about it. I'm sure we have more room for improvement.

[akc42]

Oh and if this blind member of yours has any other pet hates about the software tell them we'd like to hear about it. I'm sure we have more room for improvement.

Actually she finds SMF particularly easy to use.  Apart from this one comment, the only other problem we've had is related to a mod I made to allow local video and audio files to display through Flowplayer embedded in a post (using BBcode).  But even that has now disappeared as a later release of the JAWS software that she is using now detects Flowplayer.

She hasn't ever had an admin role, but she has been a moderator on the boards - so accessibility has had quite a wide checkout.

[Antechinus]

Cool. Thanks for the feedback. What about all the markup in 2.0? It contains a lot of markup that is purely for visual effect. Does this make things more cluttered with JAWS or is it smart enough to work around it without problems?

Also, would having skipnav links be any use?

[akc42]

I don't know the exact answer to either of your questions, but I have asked the person concerned and I await their reply (I am UK based, she lives in Texas - so there is a time difference to negotiate)

[akc42]

Cool. Thanks for the feedback. What about all the markup in 2.0? It contains a lot of markup that is purely for visual effect. Does this make things more cluttered with JAWS or is it smart enough to work around it without problems?

Also, would having skipnav links be any use?

In answer to you two questions.

1) SMF 2 is actually easier to work with than SMF 1.  The reason being that each post on a board now uses a heading for its title (this might be a function of the theme in use now is curve based, where as the one used in v1 was a specialist theme downloadeded from this site - Igoh) .  That apparently allows the ScreenReader to give a summary of the posts and allows the user to skim to see if there is anything interesting.

2) For my particular user, skipnav links aren't necessary (although she could see how some users might like them).  She tells me a lot of web sites have them but she, personally, never uses them.  She says she tends to use a control-f function built into the JAWS screenreader to search for content she is looking for.

[Antechinus]

Yes using the h4 tags would make it easier. 1.1.x was a mass of nested tables and had no heading tags. So it sounds like the extra 2.0 markup (divs, spans, etc) isn't a problem as she just searches for the h4 tags and passes over the rest. Good to know.

Sounds like skipnavs aren't a big deal either. I imagine that anyone using a screen reader with a forum regularly would be using much the same method she uses.

[Antechinus]

Closing as per note on Mantis.