>John 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 > Hello John, HTML websites styled by CSS have the potential to eventually reap SEO advantages. Your site getting ranked when prospective clients query your keywords could lead to you landing projects. Therefore, use your keywords in your alt text (and for your image file names too), without being spammy. You'd in turn be helping the blind, while optimizing your site. I looked for a good article in my files to pass along on this topic, but couldn't find one. Google the topic, or check searchenginewatch.com. Sincerely, Brian M. Curran | CAD Consultant w www.draftingservices.com ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
