[WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Hi all, What is the current wisdom about the syntax of alt tags? I believe that if I have a decorative image I am supposed to put a blank tag. But I've also been told that the tag should be alt= , NOT alt=, because with no spaces (or one) the screen reader will announce 'blank' whereas with two spaces it remains silent. Other folk have said that logo's etc should have a descriptive alt tag whereas some say a blank should be used. Google answers vary somewhat. So, in summary, my questions are: 1. When should one use an empty tag? and, more importantly, 2. What is the recommended syntax of the empty tag? Thanks, -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Thank you for your email. I shall be away from the office between September 8th and September 17th. If your enquiry is urgent, then please call my assistant on 01749 676798 in my absence. Kind regards, Nick Roper *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Hey all, First of all isn't ALT an attribute not a TAG? 1. When should one use an empty tag? I don't think you should empty attribute to start with, its all noted down in your DTD if you open it up for example the strict.dtd and search through you'll find this paragraph !-- To avoid accessibility problems for people who aren't able to see the image, you should provide a text description using the alt and longdesc attributes. In addition, avoid the use of server-side image maps. Note that in this DTD there is no name attribute. That is only available in the transitional and frameset DTD. -- !ELEMENT img EMPTY !ATTLIST img %attrs; src %URI; #REQUIRED alt %Text; #REQUIRED longdesc%URI; #IMPLIED height %Length; #IMPLIED width %Length; #IMPLIED usemap %URI; #IMPLIED ismap (ismap)#IMPLIED What is the recommended syntax of the empty tag? Why would you have an empty attribute, just write something inside it if you already took the time to add the attribute. M. Jama big:interactive 91 Princedale Road Holland Park London W11 4NS Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Direct: +44 (0)20 7313 2262 www.biggroup.co.uk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Designer Sent: 11 September 2007 09:43 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . . Hi all, What is the current wisdom about the syntax of alt tags? I believe that if I have a decorative image I am supposed to put a blank tag. But I've also been told that the tag should be alt= , NOT alt=, because with no spaces (or one) the screen reader will announce 'blank' whereas with two spaces it remains silent. Other folk have said that logo's etc should have a descriptive alt tag whereas some say a blank should be used. Google answers vary somewhat. So, in summary, my questions are: 1. When should one use an empty tag? and, more importantly, 2. What is the recommended syntax of the empty tag? Thanks, -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** 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] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Hi Bob, On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:42 AM, Designer wrote: What is the current wisdom about the syntax of alt tags? I believe that if I have a decorative image I am supposed to put a blank tag. If it's decorative image, why not make it to background image? This is most appropriate way to handle it, and you don't need to worry about blank alt tag. regards, tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: Re: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Thank you for your email. I shall be away from the office between September 8th and September 17th. If your enquiry is urgent, then please call my assistant on 01749 676798 in my absence. Kind regards, Nick Roper *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Hi Bob, Excellent question and I am sure you are going to receive many different answers which may confuse the matter more!! From my point of view I would suggest any decorative images should be styled as CSS background images, granted this brings with it the issue of losing it's place within the document and it becomes very hard when working with a CMS to allow a user to have varying heights. However, there are ways around this. My reasoning behind this is purely based on the fact that if an image has no semantic meaning to a page it shouldn't exist on the page. With regards to your logo question, I am of the belief a logo should have alt text as this is probably the most important thing about a page, it indicates to the user who is providing the information and they can determine from that whether or not it is a trusted source. Jamie. On 11/09/2007, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, What is the current wisdom about the syntax of alt tags? I believe that if I have a decorative image I am supposed to put a blank tag. But I've also been told that the tag should be alt= , NOT alt=, because with no spaces (or one) the screen reader will announce 'blank' whereas with two spaces it remains silent. Other folk have said that logo's etc should have a descriptive alt tag whereas some say a blank should be used. Google answers vary somewhat. So, in summary, my questions are: 1. When should one use an empty tag? and, more importantly, 2. What is the recommended syntax of the empty tag? Thanks, -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** 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] Speaking of alt tags . . .
On 11 Sep 2007, at 10:00, Mohamed Jama wrote: First of all isn't ALT an attribute not a TAG? Yes, it is. (but see Part 5 of NOT the comp.text.sgml FAQ http:// www.flightlab.com/~joe/sgml/faq-not.txt :) 1. When should one use an empty tag? I don't think you should empty attribute to start with, its all noted down in your DTD if you open it up for example the strict.dtd and search through you'll find this paragraph !-- To avoid accessibility problems for people who aren't able to see the image, you should provide a text description using the alt and longdesc attributes. See also the description of the attribute recommendation, which is normative and not a comment: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt In particular: 'this attribute specifies alternate text' Note that it says alternate not descriptive. and: 'Do not specify irrelevant alternate text when including images intended to format a page, for instance, alt=red ball would be inappropriate for an image that adds a red ball for decorating a heading or paragraph. In such cases, the alternate text should be the empty string ().' Which positively embraces the use of an empty string. Why would you have an empty attribute, just write something inside it if you already took the time to add the attribute. Because the attribute is mandatory but the image might be decorative, or present information that appears elsewhere in the page in a visual manor, so a non-empty string would not be an appropriate alternative. alt= effectively says The author has considered this image and determined that if it can not be displayed then nothing should be put it its place. A number of user agents (Lynx included) take a missing attribute (which is a syntax error) to mean The author has not considered alternative text at all, so the user agent should present as much information as is known (such as the file name) to the user in the hope they can infer some meaning from it. -- 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] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Quoting Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What is the current wisdom about the syntax of alt tags? I believe that if I have a decorative image I am supposed to put a blank tag. But I've also been told that the tag should be alt= , NOT alt=, because with no spaces (or one) the screen reader will announce 'blank' whereas with two spaces it remains silent. I believe that this is outdated information. Current best practice is to use alt=, which should not create any issues in current screen readers. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
On 11/09/2007, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For hand-crafted pages, done by a web artisan... Is that what we're calling ourselves now? ;) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
tag. But I've
also been told that the tag should be alt= , NOT alt=,
because with
no spaces (or one) the screen reader will announce 'blank'
whereas with
two spaces it remains silent.
David Dorward has already posted the definitive answer to your questions, so
I won't repeat what he said. I just wanted to point that the term the
screen reader seems to imply that there is One True Screen Reader, which is
far from the case. There are many different screen readers, and their
behaviour varies, even among different versions of the same software. {car
analogy warning} Saying that the screen reader behaves in a certain way is
like saying The car does 0 - 60mph in 5.6 seconds; it may in fact be true,
but unless we know _which_ car is being spoken of, it is completely
uninformative.
So if somebody has told you that you should do something a certain way
because of the screen reader singular, you can be reasonably certain that
they don't actually understand what they're talking about, and can assess
the worth of their advice on that basis.
(Aside: It should also be borne in mind that screen readers aren't the only
assistive technologies out there, just as total blindness is not the only
disability. Accessibility isn't just about screen reader behaviour.)
Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
For hand-crafted pages, done by a web artisan... Is that what we're calling ourselves now? ;) Funny you mentioned it , I instantly googled it and checked if the domain was available too sounds cool. M. Jama big:interactive 91 Princedale Road Holland Park London W11 4NS Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Direct: +44 (0)20 7313 2262 www.biggroup.co.uk file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mohamed.jama\Application%20Data\M icrosoft\Signatures\www.biggroup.co.uk *** 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] Speaking of alt tags . . .
On Sep 11, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Quoting Tee G. Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If it's decorative image, why not make it to background image? This is most appropriate way to handle it, and you don't need to worry about blank alt tag. Depending on the situation, it's not always possible to add images as non-repeating CSS. For instance, think of a CMS environment with multiple, non-technical authors using a WYSIWYG plugin/editor. It's unrealistic in those situations to expect those authors to assign an ID to a container element, add appropriate padding, and set the image as CSS background (also often they won't even be able to add CSS in the first place). For hand-crafted pages, done by a web artisan, it's true that using CSS is the more elegant solution. It's just not appropriate in all situations at this point. Hmmm, I didn't think about that. My clients asked me how to add *decorative* images by themselves, I asked are they any meaning/ purpose of those images, are they echo to your content, they said no I just wanted my page looks nice in certain area. I told them sorry you can't do that, because if it's decorative purposes I already took care of it in the CSS. To me, an decorative object is something that pleases or upsets my eyes, it may bring up an emotion, but taking it away (or without adding extra later on), the purpose of the 'website' is still complete. Those photos in Flicker, are not decorative images to me. I guess this is just how one interprets 'decorative' :) tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Quoting Tee G. Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If it's decorative image, why not make it to background image? This is most appropriate way to handle it, and you don't need to worry about blank alt tag. Depending on the situation, it's not always possible to add images as non-repeating CSS. For instance, think of a CMS environment with multiple, non-technical authors using a WYSIWYG plugin/editor. It's unrealistic in those situations to expect those authors to assign an ID to a container element, add appropriate padding, and set the image as CSS background (also often they won't even be able to add CSS in the first place). For hand-crafted pages, done by a web artisan, it's true that using CSS is the more elegant solution. It's just not appropriate in all situations at this point. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Quoting Matthew Pennell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 11/09/2007, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For hand-crafted pages, done by a web artisan... Is that what we're calling ourselves now? ;) Yup :) Watch out for my opinion piece the artisan and the mass producer in next month's .net magazine, which funnily enough touches on exactly this issue (CMS environments devaluing the web artisan's skills). P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Speaking of alt tags . . .
Tee G. Peng Hmmm, I didn't think about that. My clients asked me how to add *decorative* images by themselves, I asked are they any meaning/ purpose of those images, are they echo to your content, they said no I just wanted my page looks nice in certain area. I told them sorry you can't do that, because if it's decorative purposes I already took care of it in the CSS. For small/medium sites, it may be possible that you've already catered for all decorative situations in your CSS. But if your CMS solution is far more generic, and you need to accommodate for a wide variety of content pages, all with different decorative needs that may not be known from the start, this may not always be the case. I guess this is just how one interprets 'decorative' :) I don't think we're in disagreement here. Just that I'm thinking of far more generic CMS deployments on large scale sites. P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor Enterprise Development University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
