Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Michael Persson
As i remember alt was short for alternative text, to describe images in 
a website.
It is als yuseful for Search ENgine Optimization as its visible for them 
to also

relate them to content, titles and other components of the page.

Michael


kate wrote:
The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called 
the attribute tag.

Kate
- Original Message - From: Andrew Freedman 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute




Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM:

Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
to me...



Hi Tom,

I may be wrong here but I've always worked on the premise that alt is
alternative text for when the image isn't available (For whatever
reason) and the title is the title of the image.  An example would be
alt=Customer Care Logo title=We Care about you

However as I am always learning I may learn something here today.

Andrew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




 





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1468 - Release Date: 
5/26/2008 3:23 PM




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




--
Michael Persson
front-end developer  seo


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread lisa . kerrigan
So what's the general consensus on the use of null or empty alt strings as
per the reasons outlined in the article below?

http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/accessible_alternatives.html

Lisa Kerrigan
Website Editor
www.business.vic.gov.au
Department Innovation, Industry and Regional Development
Level 31, 121 Exhibition St
Melbourne Vic 3000
Tel:  03 9651-9176
Fax: 03 9651-9988
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



   
 Michael Persson   
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent by:   To 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wsg@webstandardsgroup.org   
 sgroup.org cc 
   
   Subject 
 28/05/2008 04:53  Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title  
 PMAttribute   
   
   
 Please respond to 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 roup.org  
   
   




As i remember alt was short for alternative text, to describe images in
a website.
It is als yuseful for Search ENgine Optimization as its visible for them
to also
relate them to content, titles and other components of the page.

Michael


kate wrote:
 The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called
 the attribute tag.
 Kate
 - Original Message - From: Andrew Freedman
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute



 Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM:
 Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
 between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
 'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
 to me...


 Hi Tom,

 I may be wrong here but I've always worked on the premise that alt is
 alternative text for when the image isn't available (For whatever
 reason) and the title is the title of the image.  An example would be
 alt=Customer Care Logo title=We Care about you

 However as I am always learning I may learn something here today.

 Andrew


 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***










 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG.
 Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1468 - Release Date:
 5/26/2008 3:23 PM



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***



--
Michael Persson
front-end developer  seo


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




**
Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development, 
Government of Victoria, Victoria, Australia.  

This e-mail and any attachments may contain privileged and confidential
information.   If you are not the intended recipient, you may not distribute
reproduce this e-mail or the attachments.   If you have received this message
in error, please notify us by return e-mail.

**



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-28 Thread Matthew Holloway

Rae Buerckner wrote:

The following is from the AGIMO website.
[...]
The preferred format is HTML, followed by Word/RTF, and text.


They should change this from Word to doc (because Word 2007 also 
includes docx and so Word is ambiguous).


And obviously they should specify the version of doc (if they don't 
already) such as doc as implemented in MS Word '97.


As with PDF they should encourage the most widely understood version of 
the format... with some exception to the rule for features only 
available in later versions of the format (Eg, for accessibility use 
Microsoft Office 2010, don't use RTF).



--
.Matthew Holloway
http://holloway.co.nz/



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



[WSG] Marking up company logo

2008-05-28 Thread Chris Pearce
Hi,

For a few years now I've been marking up a clients company logo as a h1. I 
just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do this compared to 
using a html image tag? I believe a h1 is more semantically correct however 
I'd be interested in seeing what other people on this list think.

Cheers




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Michael MD



As i remember alt was short for alternative text, to describe images in 
a website.
It is als yuseful for Search ENgine Optimization as its visible for them 
to also

relate them to content, titles and other components of the page.




text-only browsers display it. ... 


It's text for people who can't see the image.

keep that in mind!




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Marking up company logo

2008-05-28 Thread Tony McNulty
Hi Chris,

I've always done that too, it's always seemed to make the most sense here too. 
I've seen many sites that use image tags instead and do concede the point that 
without css, the logo could still be considered as worthy showing. 

I wonder if there would be a good middle ground with this. 

Cheers,

Tony
-Original Message-
From: Chris Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:49:21 
To:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Marking up company logo


Hi, 
  
For a few years now I’ve been marking up a clients company logo as a h1. I 
just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do this compared to 
using a html image tag? I believe a h1 is more semantically correct however 
I’d be interested in seeing what other people on this list think. 
  
Cheers 
  
  
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Marking up company logo

2008-05-28 Thread Lea de Groot
On Wed, 28 May 2008 17:49:21 +1000, Chris Pearce wrote:
 For a few years now I’ve been marking up a clients company logo as a 
 h1. I just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do 
 this compared to using a html image tag? I believe a h1 is more 
 semantically correct however I’d be interested in seeing what other 
 people on this list think.

There are many discussions of this one around. Here's one:
http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2004/03/quick_quiz_h1s_and_logos/
There are lots more :)

My take is that I will put the logo in the h1 element when the logo is 
the most important thing on the page (most important isn't quite what 
I mean, but its as close as I am getting at 6PM :))
This is usually the homepage.
So other pages don't get a h1 for the logo, the title of that page gets 
the h1 instead.

I usually end up with markup like this:
div id=mast
XX id=logoimg/XX
pPossibly other stuff too/p
/div

Where XX is ether H1 or div depending on the page.
This lets me write a set of rules like:
#mast { ... }
#mast #logo { ... }
so all pages are the same, whether the logo has the h1 or not

Hope it helps

warmly,
Lea
-- 
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems
Brisbane, Australia

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-28 Thread Rae Buerckner
Maybe we need the correct person from AGIMO on this list.  Having said that
the spec is probably based on Word up to 2003, which is the version most
Departments would be using, I don't believe Vista has been released as a SOE
to any Federal Government Department as yet.

Cheers,

Rae

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Holloway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Rae Buerckner wrote:

 The following is from the AGIMO website.
 [...]
 The preferred format is HTML, followed by Word/RTF, and text.


 They should change this from Word to doc (because Word 2007 also
 includes docx and so Word is ambiguous).

 And obviously they should specify the version of doc (if they don't
 already) such as doc as implemented in MS Word '97.

 As with PDF they should encourage the most widely understood version of the
 format... with some exception to the rule for features only available in
 later versions of the format (Eg, for accessibility use Microsoft Office
 2010, don't use RTF).



 --
 .Matthew Holloway
 http://holloway.co.nz/



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So what's the general consensus on the use of null or empty alt
strings as per the reasons outlined in the article below?

http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/accessible_alternatives.html


The choice between alt-text or no alt-text depends entirely on whether
an alt-text contributes something meaningful to the document, or not.
This often makes it hard for authors to decide what's best to add or
leave out, since most of us can't/won't read our documents as text-only.
Even if we do, we will still have the images fresh on our minds, which
affects our ability to make wise decisions.

Basically: If nothing gets lost when an image cannot be appreciated
visually, then its alt-text can be left out. If something/anything
important _do_ get lost, one should use the alt-text to restore the
meaning of the document in a no-images, text-only situation to as high
a level as possible - without cluttering it.

My own interpretation of the issue is presented in some length here...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_24.html
...but whether or not that constitutes any level of consensus amongst
authors/designers is a big unknown.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Marking up company logo

2008-05-28 Thread Robert O'Rourke

Chris Pearce wrote:


Hi,

For a few years now I’ve been marking up a clients company logo as a 
h1. I just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do this 
compared to using a html image tag? I believe a h1 is more 
semantically correct however I’d be interested in seeing what other 
people on this list think.


Cheers



Hi Chris,

I've often asked myself whether h1 was the best thing to use, and I used 
it primarily because it was the first thing to appear on the page and I 
wanted my headings in a logical order.


I now use the hcard microformat to mark up the company name and logo 
because it offers some decent semantic class names and can be exported eg.


div id=header
div class=vcard
a class=url href=http://www.example.com;
img class=logo alt=Company Name Logo src=... /
span class=fnCompany Name/span
/a
/div

/div

You can then extend the vcard using the include-pattern elsewhere on the 
page such as the footer or just leave it as a simple vcard.


http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard

Regards,
Rob


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Marking up company logo

2008-05-28 Thread Ian Chamberlain
I fumbled with this for a while Chris but decided against it on the grounds 
that h1  denotes the most important content on the page; the site ownerthe 
logo may think that his or her logo is the most important element on the page,  
I doubt any site users would agree.

I know we have to be pragmatic at times (clients pay wages etc) but I think the 
semantic argument should win this one. 

In most cases my h1s' contain much the same content as the page titles, 
bringing the added benefit that robots seem to like this approach; a point I 
make to clients if they ask when I explain how the semantic design can help 
them avoid SEO costs.

Regards

Ian


  - Original Message - 
  From: Chris Pearce 
  To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:49 AM
  Subject: [WSG] Marking up company logo


  Hi,

   

  For a few years now I've been marking up a clients company logo as a h1. I 
just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do this compared to 
using a html image tag? I believe a h1 is more semantically correct however 
I'd be interested in seeing what other people on this list think.

   

  Cheers

   

   


  ***
  List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  *** 

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


Re: [WSG] Marking up company logo

2008-05-28 Thread James

Hi Chris,

Here's a blog post I wrote a while ago with my view: 
http://www.digitaloverload.co.uk/blog/2007/11/23/more-semantic-logos/


James.

Chris Pearce wrote:


Hi,

For a few years now I’ve been marking up a clients company logo as a 
h1. I just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do this 
compared to using a html image tag? I believe a h1 is more 
semantically correct however I’d be interested in seeing what other 
people on this list think.





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Michael MD




So what's the general consensus on the use of null or empty alt strings as
per the reasons outlined in the article below?

http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/accessible_alternatives.html



I don't see the point of the null alt strings.

A validator is a tool to help you ... its not the be all and end all - you 
need to interpret the results with a bit of common sense.


It seems rather pointless and silly to just try to fool the validator.


suggestion:
lynx (a free text-only browser) will probably help you a lot more for 
deciding how and where to use alt text ...


can you use the page? ... does what you see make sense?








***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread David Dorward

On 28 May 2008, at 09:50, Michael MD wrote:

I don't see the point of the null alt strings.

A validator is a tool to help you ... its not the be all and end all  
- you need to interpret the results with a bit of common sense.


It seems rather pointless and silly to just try to fool the validator.


Null alt strings are not an attempt to fool the validator (well, they  
don't have to be). They are a way of explicitly saying There is no  
alternative for this image, it is just decorative or is repeating  
information that appears in the main body of text.



suggestion:
lynx (a free text-only browser) will probably help you a lot more  
for deciding how and where to use alt text ...


This is a good approach.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Designer

Ted Drake wrote:

Sorry but on hover,  IE6 will show this is a dog and other browsers will
show oh no it isn't




-Original Message-
 





Just to confuse the issue, as well as clarify it, this example:

img src=../../sitegraphics/dogandlead.gif alt=this is a dog /

WILL show the message 'this is a dog' when hovered in IE, even when the 
image is present, whereas this one:


img src=../../sitegraphics/dogandlead.gif alt=this is a dog 
title=oh no it isn't!/


Will show oh no it isn't! on hover in all browsers (well, common ones 
anyway) and only display the alt content when the image is missing. IN 
other words, title takes preference over alt, so far as display on hover 
is concerned.


That means (to me) that it's safer to do both.

Bob

 





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



I'm getting confused now - on MY IE6, the title is displayed on hover, 
not the alt. I was originally testing with my standalone IE6, so I 
checked on my laptop, (with 'real' IE6) and got the same result!




Bob



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Ted Drake
Sorry but on hover,  IE6 will show this is a dog and other browsers will
show oh no it isn't
If your tooltips are really that critical, use the YUI tooltip javascript to
get cross-browser compatibility to display the title attribute. You can also
style them. http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/container/tooltip/

You really shouldn't depend on tooltips for content. Think of them as an
added element on objects whose purpose or action is not immediately obvious.
Here's a better usage to let users know they are leaving your site. It's not
the only way of doing this, but an example. a href=http://paris.org;
title=this will take you to the Paris.org web siteimg src=paris.jpg
alt=city of paris//a

Ted

-Original Message-
 

Jason Ray wrote:
 The information in the alt attribute will only display when the image is 
 not available - [snip]
 
 The information in the title attribute will display when the pointer 
 hovers over the object or image. 

Just to confuse the issue, as well as clarify it, this example:

img src=../../sitegraphics/dogandlead.gif alt=this is a dog /

WILL show the message 'this is a dog' when hovered in IE, even when the 
image is present, whereas this one:

img src=../../sitegraphics/dogandlead.gif alt=this is a dog 
title=oh no it isn't!/

Will show oh no it isn't! on hover in all browsers (well, common ones 
anyway) and only display the alt content when the image is missing. IN 
other words, title takes preference over alt, so far as display on hover 
is concerned.

That means (to me) that it's safer to do both.

Bob

 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Rick Lecoat

On 28 May 2008, at 11:31, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

Me too. IE/win shows title-text on images when such exists,  
otherwise it

shows the alt-text if such exists.


For this reason I quite often use a null-value title attribute  
alongside filled-in alt text, simply because I don't *want* tooltips  
in my pages. This means that the alt text is there for those who need/ 
want it, but image-savvy users aren't pestered by yellow text boxes  
popping up every time they happen to mouse over an image.


Is this (eg: img src=bb.jpg alt=Big Ben clocktower in London  
title= / something that the panel would condone or condemn?


--
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Designer

Jason Ray wrote:
The information in the alt attribute will only display when the image is 
not available - [snip]


The information in the title attribute will display when the pointer 
hovers over the object or image. 


Just to confuse the issue, as well as clarify it, this example:

img src=../../sitegraphics/dogandlead.gif alt=this is a dog /

WILL show the message 'this is a dog' when hovered in IE, even when the 
image is present, whereas this one:


img src=../../sitegraphics/dogandlead.gif alt=this is a dog 
title=oh no it isn't!/


Will show oh no it isn't! on hover in all browsers (well, common ones 
anyway) and only display the alt content when the image is missing. IN 
other words, title takes preference over alt, so far as display on hover 
is concerned.


That means (to me) that it's safer to do both.

Bob



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

Designer wrote:

I'm getting confused now - on MY IE6, the title is displayed on 
hover, not the alt. I was originally testing with my standalone IE6,

 so I checked on my laptop, (with 'real' IE6) and got the same
result!


Me too. IE/win shows title-text on images when such exists, otherwise it
shows the alt-text if such exists.

The most problematic with IE6' behavior comes when title is used on an
anchor containing an image with alt-text - with or without a title. IE
tends to show the image-title/image-alt while (at least most) other
browsers show only the anchor-title, (if I remember my last battle with
that correctly).

Changes in default-behavior announced for IE8, IIRC. Probably more
confusing than ever.

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Darren West
Seems like a good idea, any implications?


2008/5/28 Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 On 28 May 2008, at 11:31, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

 Me too. IE/win shows title-text on images when such exists, otherwise it
 shows the alt-text if such exists.

 For this reason I quite often use a null-value title attribute alongside
 filled-in alt text, simply because I don't *want* tooltips in my pages. This
 means that the alt text is there for those who need/want it, but image-savvy
 users aren't pestered by yellow text boxes popping up every time they happen
 to mouse over an image.

 Is this (eg: img src=bb.jpg alt=Big Ben clocktower in London title=
 / something that the panel would condone or condemn?

 --
 Rick Lecoat



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Darren West
There is the argument that you are changing the behaviour of IE,
however wrong it is, it could be what users expect. I believe Jaws
ignores empty attributes so all good there ...


2008/5/28 Darren West [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Seems like a good idea, any implications?


 2008/5/28 Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 On 28 May 2008, at 11:31, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

 Me too. IE/win shows title-text on images when such exists, otherwise it
 shows the alt-text if such exists.

 For this reason I quite often use a null-value title attribute alongside
 filled-in alt text, simply because I don't *want* tooltips in my pages. This
 means that the alt text is there for those who need/want it, but image-savvy
 users aren't pestered by yellow text boxes popping up every time they happen
 to mouse over an image.

 Is this (eg: img src=bb.jpg alt=Big Ben clocktower in London title=
 / something that the panel would condone or condemn?

 --
 Rick Lecoat



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



[WSG] form select help needed

2008-05-28 Thread Bob Schwartz

If you go to http://www.bobstestplace.com/aahid/

using Safari on the Mac

and click on either of the drop down form menus in the right column

you will see the option list open below the form menu select in a  
window that is wide enough to view the entire name of each option.


This seems to be default behavior with Safari.

If you do the same with FireFox, some clipping occurs.

If you do the same with IE6, a lot of clipping occurs.

The question:

Any way to get the other browsers (and especially IE6) to display  
like, or nearly like (I would be happy if IE6 was at least like FF),  
Safari?


Thanks,

Bob



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] form select help needed

2008-05-28 Thread tee


On May 28, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Bob Schwartz wrote:



Any way to get the other browsers (and especially IE6) to display  
like, or nearly like (I would be happy if IE6 was at least like FF),  
Safari?



add width to option attribute.

#rht_col option {width: 250px;
padding: 0 3px;
}


tee


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Darren West
Rick Lecoat wrote:

I agree that that's an argument. But the counter-argument, to my mind, is that 
I'm *correcting* the behaviour of IE through markup and css
(well, ok, not css in this case) to bring it into line with standards 
compliant browsers, which is what we, ad web designers/developers
regularly do when working around the old IE box model, etc.

I agree.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Rick Lecoat

On 28 May 2008, at 12:53, Darren West wrote:


There is the argument that you are changing the behaviour of IE,
however wrong it is, it could be what users expect.


I agree that that's an argument. But the counter-argument, to my mind,  
is that I'm *correcting* the behaviour of IE through markup and css  
(well, ok, not css in this case) to bring it into line with standards  
compliant browsers, which is what we, ad web designers/developers  
regularly do when working around the old IE box model, etc.


I don't want my alt text showing up as tooltips in IE, period, so  
tweaking the markup to correct IE's implementation would appear to be  
the logical choice, especially since it does not break the semantics  
of the page.


On the other hand, I would be interested to hear of any problems that  
my method creates for screen readers.


--
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Darren West
Rick,

what email client are you using? how do you get the 'on 28 may darren
wrote ...' and the border-left on the quote?

Cheers

Darren


2008/5/28 Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 On 28 May 2008, at 12:53, Darren West wrote:

 There is the argument that you are changing the behaviour of IE,
 however wrong it is, it could be what users expect.

 I agree that that's an argument. But the counter-argument, to my mind, is
 that I'm *correcting* the behaviour of IE through markup and css (well, ok,
 not css in this case) to bring it into line with standards compliant
 browsers, which is what we, ad web designers/developers regularly do when
 working around the old IE box model, etc.

 I don't want my alt text showing up as tooltips in IE, period, so tweaking
 the markup to correct IE's implementation would appear to be the logical
 choice, especially since it does not break the semantics of the page.

 On the other hand, I would be interested to hear of any problems that my
 method creates for screen readers.

 --
 Rick Lecoat



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] form select help needed

2008-05-28 Thread Bob Schwartz


tee,

That seems to have brought FF around, but IE6 is still clipping.

Bob



On May 28, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Bob Schwartz wrote:



Any way to get the other browsers (and especially IE6) to display  
like, or nearly like (I would be happy if IE6 was at least like  
FF), Safari?



add width to option attribute.

#rht_col option {width: 250px;
padding: 0 3px;
}


tee


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Rick Lecoat

On 28 May 2008, at 13:39, Darren West wrote:


Rick,

what email client are you using? how do you get the 'on 28 may darren
wrote ...' and the border-left on the quote?

Cheers

Darren


Drifting OT now, but it's plain old Apple Mail. The border-left, as  
you call it, is just Mail's way of indicating quoted material. If I  
remember correctly from many years bck, Eudora did it the ame ay,  
though personally I prefer the traditional carat ().


Happy to chat about email clients but probably best to take it off- 
list, lest wrath be incurred.


--
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Marking up company logo

2008-05-28 Thread Drew Trusz
On 5/28/08, Chris Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 For a few years now I've been marking up a clients company logo as a h1. I
 just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do this compared to
 using a html image tag? I believe a h1 is more semantically correct
 however I'd be interested in seeing what other people on this list think.


Headers and particularly h1 headers are not the most important item
on a page. Headers introduce sections of which there can be more than
one on a page and which can run more than one page. This is what the
html 4.01 specs say about headers:

A heading element briefly describes the topic of the section it
introduces. Heading information may be used by user agents, for
example, to construct a table of contents for a document
automatically.

There are six levels of headings in HTML with H1 as the most important
and H6 as the least. Visual browsers usually render more important
headings in larger fonts than less important ones.

The following example shows how to use the DIV element to associate a
heading with the document section that follows it. Doing so allows you
to define a style for the section (color the background, set the font,
etc.) with style sheets.

DIV class=section id=forest-elephants 
H1Forest elephants/H1
PIn this section, we discuss the lesser known forest elephants.
...this section continues...
DIV class=subsection id=forest-habitat 
H2Habitat/H2
PForest elephants do not live in trees but among them.
...this subsection continues...
/DIV
/DIV
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-H1

HTML5 is perhaps even clearer on the sectioning nature of headings
since it also calls for the specific use of section tags to work with
headers:

The h1–h6 elements and the header element are headings.

The first element of heading content in an element of sectioning
content gives the header for that section. Subsequent headers of equal
or higher rank start new (implied) sections, headers of lower rank
start subsections that are part of the previous one.

Sectioning content elements are always considered subsections of their
nearest ancestor element of sectioning content, regardless of what
implied sections other headings may have created.

Certain elements are said to be sectioning roots, including blockquote
and td elements. These elements can have their own outlines, but the
sections and headers inside these elements do not contribute to the
outlines of their ancestors. 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#headings0

Discussions of sections and articles and outlines seem to further
confirm that headers are for sections not sites. Site headers are
discussed under articles and outlines which include and seem to
superceed headers in 5.

In other words, it seems completely plausible to have an h1 for the
logo and an h1 for the page topic if both of those seem to the author
to constitute separate sections in 4.01 and obligatory in 5.


drew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

Darren West wrote:
There is the argument that you are changing the behaviour of IE, 
however wrong it is, it could be what users expect. I believe Jaws 
ignores empty attributes so all good there ...


I do not think one should meddle with a browser's behavior in minor
cases like showing alt-text as tool-tip by default. Nothing gets
broken in most cases, and other browsers can show alt-text as tool-tip
too - via an option or add-on.

Only those cases where clearly a wrong and misguiding text pops up on
:hover in IE, should any form of workarounds be applied ... IMO.

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] form select help needed

2008-05-28 Thread tee
Yup, I see it too. In IE, the option attribute inherits the select  
attribute.

I tried adding a class and placed to the option, but doesn't work.

tee
On May 28, 2008, at 5:48 AM, Bob Schwartz wrote:



tee,

That seems to have brought FF around, but IE6 is still clipping.

Bob



On May 28, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Bob Schwartz wrote:



Any way to get the other browsers (and especially IE6) to display  
like, or nearly like (I would be happy if IE6 was at least like  
FF), Safari?



add width to option attribute.

#rht_col option {width: 250px;
padding: 0 3px;
}







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] form select help needed

2008-05-28 Thread willdonovan

Hi Bob,

not being on my main work station, I'll give it a try.

the select tag has a set width. There is a chance that IE is restricting 
the list to that set width and using this set width as the view port of 
the option list.

Look it up.

From experience i also notice that IE (IE6 in particular) can have 
cross-browser CSS conflicts around the padding and margins being set 
together and with a value of 0.

It may be nothing but a place to investigate. Try a search.

I also noticed how the list opened upwards for me, as opposed to a 'drop 
down' combo box.


It seems to work fine in FireFox for me.
Also found validation error on the input tag on the select list form not 
close in xhtml format.


Also is the javascript orientation for the list the best option.
Accessibility issues can rise. A 'Go' button could assist. I'm sure 
there are better ideas from other members.


William





Bob Schwartz wrote:

If you go to http://www.bobstestplace.com/aahid/

using Safari on the Mac

and click on either of the drop down form menus in the right column

you will see the option list open below the form menu select in a 
window that is wide enough to view the entire name of each option.


This seems to be default behavior with Safari.

If you do the same with FireFox, some clipping occurs.

If you do the same with IE6, a lot of clipping occurs.

The question:

Any way to get the other browsers (and especially IE6) to display 
like, or nearly like (I would be happy if IE6 was at least like FF), 
Safari?


Thanks,

Bob



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] form select help needed

2008-05-28 Thread Bob Schwartz

William,

the select tag has a set width. There is a chance that IE is  
restricting the list to that set width and using this set width as  
the view port of the option list.

Look it up.


I suspect that is the problem also. I have been looking for a  
solution, but not getting anywhere, which is why the post.


I also noticed how the list opened upwards for me, as opposed to a  
'drop down' combo box.


Weird, but maybe related to the browser window height.


Also found validation error on the input tag on the select list form  
not close in xhtml format.


Fixed


Also is the javascript orientation for the list the best option.
Accessibility issues can rise. A 'Go' button could assist. I'm sure  
there are better ideas from other members.


Probably not, but if I can't solve this IE clipping problem I may have  
to re-think the whole idea.


Once the IE thing is solved, I'll look further into triggering the  
links.




Bob Schwartz wrote:

If you go to http://www.bobstestplace.com/aahid/

using Safari on the Mac

and click on either of the drop down form menus in the right column

you will see the option list open below the form menu select in a  
window that is wide enough to view the entire name of each option.


This seems to be default behavior with Safari.

If you do the same with FireFox, some clipping occurs.

If you do the same with IE6, a lot of clipping occurs.

The question:

Any way to get the other browsers (and especially IE6) to display  
like, or nearly like (I would be happy if IE6 was at least like  
FF), Safari?


Thanks,

Bob



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Tom Livingston
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On May 27, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Freedman wrote:

 kate provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:21 AM:

 The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called the
 attribute tag.
 Kate

 Patrick H. Lauke also provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:33
 AM:

 or...the alt attribute, if you want to correct people...

 That's all well and good and I for one thank you for clarifying that but how
 does that answer Tom's query?
 Andrew.

 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***

 Really! Is there anyone on this list who doesn't understand the distinction
 between 'tag' and 'attribute'. And does anyone seriously not understand what
 is meant when reference is made to the 'alt tag', or to HTML 'code' rather
 than 'markup'?
 I would certainly agree that in the context of a lecture on the subject
 these distinctions are important. But in the context of discussions on this
 list I think this is taking semantic hair-splitting to unwarranted extremes,
 especially if, as Andrew points out, it doesn't accompany some effort to
 respond to the question at hand.
 I move that henceforth it should be acceptable here to use 'tag' as
 shorthand for 'attribute' and 'code' for 'markup'.
 Andrew


May I also note that in my original question, I never used the term
'alt tag' in the first place.

Thanks to those with the helpful replies...


-- 

Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic |
ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Darren West
ahhh hahaha

thats brilliant!!

Tom said:

 How about a real 'attributes for dummies' reference??

 are you writing a book?


2008/5/28 Tom Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On May 27, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Freedman wrote:

 kate provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:21 AM:

 The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called the
 attribute tag.
 Kate

 Patrick H. Lauke also provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:33
 AM:

 or...the alt attribute, if you want to correct people...

 That's all well and good and I for one thank you for clarifying that but how
 does that answer Tom's query?
 Andrew.

 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***

 Really! Is there anyone on this list who doesn't understand the distinction
 between 'tag' and 'attribute'. And does anyone seriously not understand what
 is meant when reference is made to the 'alt tag', or to HTML 'code' rather
 than 'markup'?
 I would certainly agree that in the context of a lecture on the subject
 these distinctions are important. But in the context of discussions on this
 list I think this is taking semantic hair-splitting to unwarranted extremes,
 especially if, as Andrew points out, it doesn't accompany some effort to
 respond to the question at hand.
 I move that henceforth it should be acceptable here to use 'tag' as
 shorthand for 'attribute' and 'code' for 'markup'.
 Andrew


 May I also note that in my original question, I never used the term
 'alt tag' in the first place.

 Thanks to those with the helpful replies...


 --

 Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic |
 ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com


 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] Marking up company logo

2008-05-28 Thread Jens-Uwe Korff
 The H1 should be used for the most important heading, usually the name
of the page

I second that. 

We used to have lots of logos in h1s too, and after a thorough SEO
discussion we changed that to a p.

The h1 now holds the page title.


Cheers,
 
Jens 

The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is 
or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any 
attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of 
it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of 
the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise 
the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. 
Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information 
contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not 
secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents 
of this message or attached files.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-28 Thread Jens-Uwe Korff
 I don't see the point of the null alt strings.

Consider e.g. sponsor images. You don't want to pollute your SEOed
page with sponsor keywords, nor is it necessary from an accessibility
point of view. 

Cheers,
 
Jens 

The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is 
or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any 
attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of 
it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of 
the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise 
the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. 
Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information 
contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not 
secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents 
of this message or attached files.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***