From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.redhat.com (mail.redhat.com [199.183.24.239]) by listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0262EFA6 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mail@localhost) by mail.redhat.com (8.11.0/8.8.7) id f88KSJd18969 for blinux-list@listman.redhat.com; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:28:19 -0400 Received: from tux.w3.org (IDENT:root@tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27]) by mail.redhat.com (8.11.0/8.8.7) with ESMTP id f88KSIg18965 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:28:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (charles@localhost) by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA32755 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:28:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:28:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles McCathieNevile To: Subject: Re: Alt= In Images In-Reply-To: <20010908193241.VHWD557.femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com@eklhad> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Loop: blinux-list@redhat.com Sender: blinux-list-admin@redhat.com Errors-To: blinux-list-admin@redhat.com X-BeenThere: blinux-list@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: blinux-list@redhat.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux for blind general discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Not putting alt tags on things that are actually important to conveying the message is a very bad thing (Trademark, patent pending). It means people don't know what is there. Some browsers will try to guess, but it is a pretty third-rate solution when the author could often have done a first-rate job. Where the image is not doing anything except taking space, I would advise people to put alt="". This is becuase browsers aren't sure whether they need to try and repair images or not based on any good criteria - either they will add hints for all images, or just images that are used for links (problem if there is an image that conveys information but isn't a link), or will not try to do anything. So if you do this well-made but basic browsers won't put anything like "foo.gif" or "none" all over the page where it is unnecessary. (Thanks for taking time to make stuff accessible - it is important to lots of people who might not seem to need it as well as people who do) cheers Charles McCN On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Karl Dahlke wrote: > I don't use alt tags in my web pages. I agree with Andor. If the image is just for pretty, don't bother. But if it's a clickable icon, a link or submit button, put an alt= description in. If you don't, my browser is a little smarter than lynx. It looks at the file name you are linking to and shows me the tail of that. If an image links to this.that.com/foo/bar/shopping.html, then I'll read {shopping} I won't even know it was an image, but I'll realize there is a link there, and I have a good idea what it's for. Course this strategy doesn't always help. Sometimes the linked file ends in index.html, and then all I get is {index} Maybe in this case I should back up and present the directory name?? Well it wouldn't be necessary if everyone used alt= on linking images. Thanks for taking the time to make your site accessible to all. We do appreciate it. Karl _______________________________________________ Blinux-list mailing list Blinux-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)