The alt tag should contain a description of the image. If you were viewing your page without images, what would you want the tag to say to replace it? If your image can't be so described then it is decoration and should be brought in via CSS, not your html.
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:36 PM, John <j...@coffeeonmars.com> wrote: > I'm validating my website pages, html first, and mostly what I'm > getting errors on is my failure to use alt inside my img tags.. > Actually, it's more of a warning, I guess it's promoting best > practices, but lack of alt doesn't seem to affect the validity and > function of the code. > > But as I'm going through each image tag, I wonder how verbose should > I be? Is the assumption that blind people will gain value from > hearing a description of every image they can not see? > > the website in question is my own graphic design portfolio site, so > the odds of blind people visiting are slim. > > However for other sites, is it wise and proper to paint as much of a > picture as you can for benefit of those who can't see? Maybe the > answer is an obvious "yes" for some images, but I can also imagine it > being pretty annoying hearing "logo" over and over again, whereas > there could be some functional benefit to hearing "shopping cart icon." > > thoughts? > > thank you, > > John > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > -- Ed Seedhouse ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
