, 2008 3:18 AM
To: WHAT working group
Cc: Bill Mason; Smylers
Subject: Re: [whatwg] ALT and equivalent representation
Fallback for current browsers is something I overlooked but it is easy
to do:
altgroup id=hippo value=Hippopotamus
img src=hippo_head.png altgroup=hippo alt=Hippopotamusimg
src
Or even img src=11100 alt=3/5
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Mason
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:14 PM
To: Simon Pieters
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] ALT and equivalent representation
Simon Pieters wrote
that belong to the same ALTGROUP of
yours are not contiguous?
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shannon
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 1:30 PM
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] ALT and equivalent representation
What about
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Křištof Želechovski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is the advantage of cutting an image to parts
and having the browser show them as one by putting them aside?
I would rather use one big image in the first place.
Chris
On my company's web site, our header
Shannon wrote:
Smylers wrote:
What advantage does it have over Simon's proposal?
Simon's suggestion has the obvious advantage that it already works with
current browsers.
Smylers
Simon's suggestion is no different from the original proposal, the idea
that alt can be optional on some
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
I think you've misunderstand Simon's suggestion, which was:
pRating: img src=1 alt=3/5img src=1 altimg src=1 altimg
src=0 altimg src=0 alt/p
Note /all/ the img elements have alt attributes, the point is the
alternative text for the group is expressed by the
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:48:06 +0200, Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
I think you've misunderstand Simon's suggestion, which was:
pRating: img src=1 alt=3/5img src=1 altimg src=1 altimg
src=0 altimg src=0 alt/p
Note /all/ the img elements have alt attributes,
Shannon wrote:
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
I think you've misunderstand Simon's suggestion, which was:
pRating: img src=1 alt=3/5img src=1 altimg src=1 altimg
src=0 altimg src=0 alt/p
Note /all/ the img elements have alt attributes, the point is the
alternative text for the group is
Shannon writes:
Shannon wrote:
What about this as a possible solution?
img src=part1.png altgroup=rating
img src=part2.png altgroup=rating
img src=part3.png altgroup=rating
altgroup id=rating value=3/5
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as
the
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
But whether we need a mechanism for denoting differing img elements
combine to form a single image is a very different question from
whether alt should be optional or required. You seem to be conflating
them.
How can img alt or img alt= not be related to
Smylers wrote:
Bill Mason writes:
Simon Pieters wrote:
For instance it would be reasonable to use two images -- a filled
star and an unfilled star -- to represent a rating of something:
p Rating: img src=1 img src=1 img src=1 img src=0
img src=0 /p
You'd want the text version to
What about this as a possible solution?
img src=part1.png altgroup=rating
img src=part2.png altgroup=rating
img src=part3.png altgroup=rating
altgroup id=rating value=3/5
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
logic is quite simple; If all elements in an
Shannon wrote:
What about this as a possible solution?
img src=part1.png altgroup=rating
img src=part2.png altgroup=rating
img src=part3.png altgroup=rating
altgroup id=rating value=3/5
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
logic is quite simple; If all
Shannon writes:
What about this as a possible solution?
img src=part1.png altgroup=rating
img src=part2.png altgroup=rating
img src=part3.png altgroup=rating
altgroup id=rating value=3/5
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
logic is quite simple;
Shannon wrote:
What about this as a possible solution?
img src=part1.png altgroup=rating
img src=part2.png altgroup=rating
img src=part3.png altgroup=rating
altgroup id=rating value=3/5
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
logic is quite simple;
Bill
Shannon wrote:
To make
matters worse some browsers display the alt tag while waiting for images
to come from the server and this creates visual artifacts that designers
and clients generally consider undesirable.
That's a feature not a bug. Many users are on slow connections.
The end
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:30:12 +0200, Philip Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What should happen for 'tracker' images? (i.e. img
src=http://evil.google.com/user-track.php?site=97519340; width=1
height=1 alt=???)
As some examples, Geocities has alt=setstats, someone has
alt=statystyka, someone
On Apr 19, 2008, at 07:19, Shannon wrote:
The end result of this is that alt tags tend to be seen as a burden
by the majority of web designers I've met.
Of course. Once you're thinking in terms of wanting to publish and
image, producing text *in addition* to the image is a burden.
The
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Instead of having a layer of validitity speculation in between,
couldn't you make the point that alt helps with SEO? To me linking alt
and SEO directly is more to the point and more honest, too.
Whoa, don't do that! They'll just insist on you stuffing 100 characters
Shannon wrote:
The ONLY business justification I have for using alt tags is that a
w3c valid site REQUIRES them and this may increase the sites Google rank
(which is just speculation really). If you take the requirement out to
use them on every image in a valid site then you take away much
Philip Taylor wrote:
I believe the company logo case is also unclear in the spec. See e.g.
http://www.google.com/ (when it's not a special day) - the image is
simply the word Google (as a page heading, so it should probably be
in h1), so common sense says it should have alt=Google. The spec
Simon Pieters wrote:
For instance it would be reasonable to use two images -- a filled star
and an unfilled star -- to represent a rating of something:
pRating: img src=1img src=1img src=1img src=0img src=0/p
You'd want the text version to be:
Rating: 3/5
There would probably be the
Bill Mason writes:
Simon Pieters wrote:
For instance it would be reasonable to use two images -- a filled
star and an unfilled star -- to represent a rating of something:
p Rating: img src=1 img src=1 img src=1 img src=0
img src=0 /p
You'd want the text version to be:
Today in IRC a discussion lead to a hypothetical example that didn't fit
easily into the spec's current requirements for the alt attribute.
The example was a case of a hacker who replaces the Google logo on
google.com with an image only containing the text WE HACKED YOUR
SERVERS. We assume
On 18/04/2008, Bill Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The example was a case of a hacker who replaces the Google logo on
google.com with an image only containing the text WE HACKED YOUR SERVERS.
We assume the hacker cares enough about accessibility to set the alt
attribute to the same text.
RE: Comments by Phillip Taylor and Bill Mason regarding alt=
You both raise some excellent points. Logically alt should be optional
since as you clearly demonstrate some things have no alternate textual
meaning (at least not one of any value to the user). The trouble with
alt= (or no alt) is
26 matches
Mail list logo
