On Jul 14, 2007, at 6:52 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
I'm increasingly sceptical about non-qualitative statistical
exercises of this sort. They need to be interpreted with great
caution. For example, alt= may be compliant with the (X)HTML
specifications, or it may not be. You just
Manu Sporny wrote:
As Scott has pointed out, the only way to know this is to start
gathering real data. I am in the process of writing an image crawler
(which will hopefully be done by tonight) to gather these statistics.
The first run of the img tag analysis has been completed, here are the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Manu Sporny
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The percentages below are the percentages of img tags that contained
non-empty attributes:
src:99%
height: 66%
width: 66%
alt:41%
title: 5%
id: 4%
In general, only 41% of 'img' tags list non-empty 'alt'
Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Manu Sporny
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The percentages below are the percentages of img tags that contained
non-empty attributes:
src:99%
height: 66%
width: 66%
alt:41%
title: 5%
id: 4%
In general, only 41% of 'img'
Manu Sporny wrote:
59% of most websites are complying with the HTML 4.01 specification
regarding usage of 'alt' with image tags.
I used the terminology most websites because the data gathered is,
statistically speaking, overkill. Assuming 125,626,329 websites (per
Netcraft) we would need a
