In response to Derek Featherstone,
My (hopefully useful) contribution picks up on something I learnt in my brief flirtation with the advertising industry.
A caption should not restate what is in the image. The two should be complementary.
So, let's say the image is of a person and a cat sitting by the sea. The caption should not repeat what is in the image, but provide information that is not there. The caption may tell us that this is Mark, and that this is not just any cat, but his cat (perhaps with a name). It should not tell us that it is beside the sea, because we can see that, but may tell us which piece of foreshore it is. It should not tell us that they are happy because this, too, is evident from the image. Nor that they are sitting. It may tell us when the photo was taken, but not that it is a photo, because we know this.
"Mark and Puddles at Bondi, 9 December 2004"
Anything useful about the photo that is not described in the caption can now go in the alt tag.
-Hugh Todd
What is critical and what is "extra" is determined by context. In general,
the lower tech the approach, the more accessible it is. If it is in the
content, everyone gets what they need, instead of having to rely on a
tooltip which may or may not appear for the information.
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
