?
...
anyone has got idea, how to show hint string on web page?
in IE, ALT tag works fine, in FireFox it doesn't : (
in IE, ALT tag works fine, in FireFox it doesn't : (
?
...
TITLE works fine 
S
saz
alt tag on mouseover is not supported in FF, but title is. alt tags in
FF only displays if the image does not load.
R
Richard Brooks
saz said:
I think I read in the Firefox bumph somewhere that Firefox is keeping to W3C
compliancy and using ALT as it was meant to be used.
It's a good road to get back to if IE has allowed us over the years to write
in a way we shouldn't be doing. I know this full well! ;-)
Richard.
J
Jonathan N. Little
saz said:
Which is what I believe the intended purpose of the ALT tag was, to
display an alternate description of the image if the image was either
missing or unavailable for text-only browsers.
Use TITLE and if you want to include the small sample of legacy browsers
4x browsers that displayed the ALT as a tool tip duplicate in the ALT tag.
D
Dave Patton
... said:
IE does it wrong, FF does it correctly.
The ALT tag contents are intended as text to be
used when the image cannot be displayed, not as
a "tooltip".
A
Andy Dingley
It was somewhere outside Barstow when "Jonathan N. Little"
I just wish that if loading the image does happen to fail, FF showed
the alt text with some sort of "missing image" icon, not just the
plain text on its own.
I just wish that if loading the image does happen to fail, FF showed
the alt text with some sort of "missing image" icon, not just the
plain text on its own.
J
jake
In all cases (including IE) you should be using the contents of... <[email protected]> said:
"TITLE=........." for the tool-tip.
"ALT=......" is the image description -- designed to be displayed when
the image can't.
IE just happens to display the ALT contents if it can't find a TITLE
(whether it should or shouldn't is a subject for debate -- but not by me
;-)
regards.
L
Leif K-Brooks
Andy said:
Why? If the alt text really replaces the image's content, why would the
visitor care whether there was an image that failed to load?
A
Andy Dingley
It was somewhere outside Barstow when Leif K-Brooks
It doesn't - there's supposed to be an image, the author wanted one,
the browser user wanted one, but the network failed to deliver it. The
text is a partial substitute, not a perfect replacement for it - the
user should still be notified.
It doesn't - there's supposed to be an image, the author wanted one,
the browser user wanted one, but the network failed to deliver it. The
text is a partial substitute, not a perfect replacement for it - the
user should still be notified.
N
n|ck
Leif said:
In some cases, the layout may not look right if the dimensions of the image are
not set. I believe that in FF, the image dimensions are not set if the image is
not found. It's pretty annoying - I guess you could style the dimensions if you
had to but I haven't tested that and don't know if it works.
B
Blinky the Shark
n|ck said:
FF 1.01/Linux, here: right -- the defined dimensions aren't rendered as an empty
box if image not found.
T
Toby Inkster
Blinky said:
With Opera, the defined dimensions are rendered if the image doesn't load,
but are ignored if the user has disabled images.
A
Andy Dingley
I don't mind that - the page is broken, the layout can break too. But
I'd like some clear feedback that the page _is_ broken (i.e. there
ought to be an image there).
B
Blinky the Shark
Toby said:
To similarly round out my own comment: With FF the defined dimensions
are also not rendered as an empty box if user has disabled images.
D
data64
Except that with the popular practise of blocking ads using a hosts file,
this becomes undesirable.
data64
A
Andy Dingley
It was somewhere outside Barstow when data64 said:
I don't think this is necessarily such a bad thing. Even if I don't
want ads, a small icon and any alt text (as IE does it) isn't too
offensive.
What I don't like about FF's behaviour is that's impossible for me to
tell that there _should_ have been an image there. This can make many
pages misleading.
B
Blinky the Shark
Might want to try the AdBlock extension, set to retain the spaces the ads
would use.
R
Richard Brooks
[Added]Richard said:
I found this printout as I'm having to rewrite my lazy coding.
<http://www.computergripes.com/firefoxsites.html>
It might be interesting to you.
Richard.
As a person who used the internet in 1995 and for the sake of speed people over 14.4 or 28.8 dialup would turn off image loading. Alt tags can allow you to still use the graphic navigation buttons and so forth. I know that is wicked old school but I'm sure that is why the option still exists today.Leif K-Brooks said:
My question would be, do website "readers" for the visually impaired read the TITLE tag? I had always worked form the premise that they read from the ALT tag.