Ed Seedhouse wrote:
The alt tag should contain a description of the image.
No, in general it should contain a replacement for the image. But this is
off-topic in the list, so I will comment on the _styling_ related issues of
alt attributes.
If you were
viewing your page without images,
--- On Thu, 5/6/10, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote:
Another CSS-related issue is that many people have used alt
attributes to
create tooltips, like annotations on the images. This
tends to interfere
with the proper use of such attributes. Moreover, the
tooltips are
rendered
If your image can't be so described then it is
decoration and should be brought in via CSS, not your html.
While this sounds theoretically correct, there is a practical problem.
Decorative images in CSS means (at least for now) using _background_
images.
When a page is printed,
Therefore, if you want to show tooltips, it's better to
do that with CSS
(or CSS + JavaScript), e.g. including explanatory text in
document content,
hiding it with CSS, and making it visible in a particular
position. It's
useful then to add title= (i.e., title attribute with
empty
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
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
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.
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..
thoughts?
John
More appropriate lists on which to post your question may be:
http://webstandardsgroup.org/
and
http://webaim.org/
John wrote:
[snip]
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
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.
img elements can be used for
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
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 6 May 2010 02:36, 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
