richard said:
Why? Sizing only wastes space. That's basically if you want to chop
down a huge pic. I don't see the point.
A few bytes of size info in the code may seem a waste, but weigh that
against the seconds of time that may get wasted for large or complicated
pages whose final layouts depend on determining the eventual size of the
images. Doesn't seem to apply much (either the size or time) for your
dinky pages.
But: if I want to chop down a huge pic, I resize it in some graphics
software and serve only the size at which I want it displayed.
Originally, the alt stuff was supposed to work in identifying
something that might not show up for some reason. Or when you move
your pointer over an image, you'd be given a "tooltip" thing. FF does
nothing with it.
So use the title attribute for reasonable browsers like FF (and guess
what, IE6 uses title text as tooltip-like info, too). You answer
suggests you don't care about images "that might not show up for some
reason." FF *does* do something with alt text, in the appropriate
cicumstances.
Show me a screen shot. What ever you click on should open in the
iframe.
You don't need a screen shot. Do you? "Below the fold" refers to content
south of what the (typical or particular) user sees when viewing the
page in hir browser.
(The term comes from the newspaper biz, referring to front-page content
on the lower half of the page, not readily visible to prospective buyers
looking at a stack of folded papers.)
Since it's below the fold, the iframe content *won't appear* in any
screenshot. Which is part of the point.
I prefer the iframe as then you don't have to hit the back button or
close out another window. Things may change in the near future as I
have changed this thing a dozen times at least.
So the project isn't really done, then, is it? ;-)