required attribute "ALT" not specified .

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Lsimmons5, May 31, 2007.

  1. Lsimmons5

    Lsimmons5 Guest

    Hi,
    I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
    Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
    width="180"></a></td>

    The actual html from the page is as follows:
    href="links.html"><img src="LINKS.gif" border="0" height="23"
    width="180"></a></td>

    Is it possible for anyone to correct the above html because I don't
    understand it?

    Many thanks
     
    Lsimmons5, May 31, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On May 31, 5:36 pm, Lsimmons5 <> wrote:
    > I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
    > Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
    > width="180"></a></td>


    So the attribute 'alt' is required, and you haven't specified it.

    Step 1: Look up what the alt attribute means: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/attributes.html

    Step 2: Do some searching to find out how to use it in practice:
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=al...org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
    (with http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/altAttribute and http://htmlhelp.com/feature/art3.htm
    being particularly good results from that page)

    Step 3: Add the code
     
    David Dorward, May 31, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lsimmons5

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On May 31, 11:36 am, Lsimmons5 <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    > I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
    > Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
    > width="180"></a></td>
    >
    > The actual html from the page is as follows:
    > href="links.html"><img src="LINKS.gif" border="0" height="23"
    > width="180"></a></td>
    >
    > Is it possible for anyone to correct the above html because I don't
    > understand it?
    >
    > Many thanks


    I agree that it will help if you study "alt" in detail. Within your
    img tag you might have alt="big black dog" if your image is a picture
    of a black dog. The text alt is required for valid W3C html because
    some may have images turned off or not be able to see them for any
    reason. Some turn off images to speed up viewing pages on slow
    connections. In that case, the alt text appears instead of the image,
    and if the alt text is of interest, the viewer may turn the image on.
    There are still a very few devices that are text only. Also, some
    devices for the blind can speak the alt text so the blind person will
    know the nature of the image.
     
    cwdjrxyz, May 31, 2007
    #3
  4. Lsimmons5

    Dan Guest

    On May 31, 12:36 pm, Lsimmons5 <> wrote:
    > I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
    > Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
    > width="180"></a></td>


    Put in an ALT attribute, obviously.

    > The actual html from the page is as follows:
    > href="links.html"><img src="LINKS.gif" border="0" height="23"
    > width="180"></a></td>
    >
    > Is it possible for anyone to correct the above html because I don't
    > understand it?


    <a href="links.html"><img src="LINKS.gif" border="0" height="23"
    width="180" alt="Links"></a></td>

    The actual value of the "alt" attribute depends on the nature and
    purpose of the image, but presuming that the image is a navigation
    button that says "Links", then "Links" would be the sensible value for
    it.

    --
    Dan
     
    Dan, Jun 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Lsimmons5

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On May 31, 6:16 pm, Dan <> wrote:
    > On May 31, 12:36 pm, Lsimmons5 <> wrote:
    >
    > > I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
    > > Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
    > > width="180"></a></td>

    >
    > Put in an ALT attribute, obviously.
    >
    > > The actual html from the page is as follows:
    > > href="links.html"><img src="LINKS.gif" border="0" height="23"
    > > width="180"></a></td>

    >
    > > Is it possible for anyone to correct the above html because I don't
    > > understand it?

    >
    > <a href="links.html"><img src="LINKS.gif" border="0" height="23"
    > width="180" alt="Links"></a></td>
    >
    > The actual value of the "alt" attribute depends on the nature and
    > purpose of the image, but presuming that the image is a navigation
    > button that says "Links", then "Links" would be the sensible value for
    > it.


    Perhaps a working example will also help. Go to the page
    http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/ . Note the image at the bottom and
    the alt that goes with it. Click ENTER to go to the next page with
    links buttons and see how I wrote the alt for the buttons. Next turn
    off images. For example, for Firefox: tools tab > options > content >
    uncheck load images automatically. Next go back to the url I gave. The
    images at the bottom of the page are gone and are replaced by the alt
    text. Then click ENTER to go to the next page. Note that the names of
    the link buttons as given in the alt text are displayed. Also note
    that these are underlined and now clicking the alt text for the link
    buttons now replaces the images to go to a link. Also if you write
    alt="", the W3C html validator is satisfied. This usually would not be
    a good idea, but it might help in some special case, although I can
    not think of a good reason for a blank alt text at the moment.

    The entry page will have different images at the bottom when it is
    reloaded. This is done with an external javascript to select from a
    list of images at random. But some people turn off javascript. The
    noscript code is for that case. People with script turned off get the
    same image every time. Although this is not directly concerned with
    the alt question, I mention it so you know what is going on when you
    do not get the same image every time you enter the page.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jun 1, 2007
    #5
  6. Scripsit cwdjrxyz:

    > Perhaps a working example will also help.


    So why don't you give one?

    > Go to the page http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/ . Note the image at the
    > bottom and
    > the alt that goes with it.


    The alt text repeats the image caption. While that might be the least of
    evils in some cases, it's hardly a working example of anything.

    > Click ENTER to go to the next page


    So you referred us to a pointless splash page. How about a working example
    of something?

    > with links buttons and see how I wrote the alt for the buttons.


    They are idiotic. Metaphorically speaking. Apologies to idiots; they cannot
    help being idiots, but you could stop writing idiotic alt texts.

    "go button 1a" helps nobody. It's even more foolish than it looks like,
    since it's a link, so its alt text is effectively the link text. How useful
    do you expect such link texts to be?

    You could simply change the questions themselves into links and leave out
    the stupid buttons.
    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 1, 2007
    #6
  7. Lsimmons5

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    > Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
    >
    > > Perhaps a working example will also help.

    >
    > So why don't you give one?
    >
    > > Go to the pagehttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/. Note the image at the
    > > bottom and
    > > the alt that goes with it.

    >
    > The alt text repeats the image caption. While that might be the least of
    > evils in some cases, it's hardly a working example of anything.
    >
    > > Click ENTER to go to the next page

    >
    > So you referred us to a pointless splash page. How about a working example
    > of something?


    If you like pages that are mainly text, fine for you. However the
    entry page gives a brief statement about what the site is about. Below
    it cycles at random many pictures of great interest to lovers of fine
    wine. Seeing pictures of some very rare wines such as 1978 Romanee-
    Conti and DRC Montrachet, or the legendary true Tokaji Eszencia from
    the 1800s is of interest to many who like fine wine. It attracts them
    to read further by clicking the entry button. The net is now exploding
    into multi media. Some like that, and some do not. I find a place for
    it on a site such as this. I really care nothing about your opinion,
    to which you are entitled.

    > > with links buttons and see how I wrote the alt for the buttons.


    > They are idiotic. Metaphorically speaking. Apologies to idiots; they cannot
    > help being idiots, but you could stop writing idiotic alt texts.


    I just laugh at your apparent attempted insults. Why should I care
    what you think. I like buttons for a site such as this. I am hardly an
    idiot, as I received a PhD in physical chemistry at only 24 and have
    published in the area in top peer reviewed international scientific
    journals.

    > "go button 1a" helps nobody. It's even more foolish than it looks like,
    > since it's a link, so its alt text is effectively the link text. How useful
    > do you expect such link texts to be?
    >
    > You could simply change the questions themselves into links and leave out
    > the stupid buttons.


    I am quite aware of how to use a text link and would do so if I wanted
    to. I need no instructions from you.

    I have reached a time in life when I don't care much what others
    think. No matter what you do, you can not please everyone all of the
    time, I do what I think best. I am not at all upset. You should see
    some of the difficult people I have had to deal with over the years -
    journal referees, journal editors, and government bureaucrats, among
    others. You soon have a fairly tough skin after dealing with some of
    these. How about showing us some of your best web pages in the style
    you like to write. You appear to have been writing pages for a long
    time, and many, including myself, might benefit by viewing the code.

    > --
    > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jun 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Scripsit cwdjrxyz:

    > I am hardly an idiot, as I received a PhD


    I didn't say you're an idiot. I said your buttons are idiotic. Now you
    confirm that you are worse than an idiot, since you even refuse to learn,
    despite your ability to learn. An idiot is not responsible for his actions.

    > I need no instructions from you.


    The point is that you are not qualified to give others advice on web
    authoring, specifically not "working examples" of alt texts, since your own
    alt texts are idiotic and you keep them idiotic even after your mistake was
    pointed out.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 1, 2007
    #8
  9. On May 31, 6:48 pm, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > I agree that it will help if you study "alt" in detail. Within your
    > img tag you might have alt="big black dog" if your image is a picture
    > of a black dog.


    You might, but it is unlikely to be a suitable alternative for the
    image. More likely it is a decorative image (in which case alt="" is
    suitable) or it is conveying a message (alt="Benny is a happy dog who
    likes to play fetch").

    --
    David Dorward
    http://dorward.me.uk/
    http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
     
    David Dorward, Jun 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Lsimmons5

    Lsimmons5 Guest

    On Jun 1, 8:47 am, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Scripsit cwdjrxyz:

    >
    > > > Perhaps a working example will also help.

    >
    > > So why don't you give one?

    >
    > > > Go to the pagehttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/. Note the image at the
    > > > bottom and
    > > > the alt that goes with it.

    >
    > > The alt text repeats the image caption. While that might be the least of
    > > evils in some cases, it's hardly a working example of anything.

    >
    > > > Click ENTER to go to the next page

    >
    > > So you referred us to a pointless splash page. How about a working example
    > > of something?

    >
    > If you like pages that are mainly text, fine for you. However the
    > entry page gives a brief statement about what the site is about. Below
    > it cycles at random many pictures of great interest to lovers of fine
    > wine. Seeing pictures of some very rare wines such as 1978 Romanee-
    > Conti and DRC Montrachet, or the legendary true Tokaji Eszencia from
    > the 1800s is of interest to many who like fine wine. It attracts them
    > to read further by clicking the entry button. The net is now exploding
    > into multi media. Some like that, and some do not. I find a place for
    > it on a site such as this. I really care nothing about your opinion,
    > to which you are entitled.
    >
    > > > with links buttons and see how I wrote the alt for the buttons.

    > > They are idiotic. Metaphorically speaking. Apologies to idiots; they cannot
    > > help being idiots, but you could stop writing idiotic alt texts.

    >
    > I just laugh at your apparent attempted insults. Why should I care
    > what you think. I like buttons for a site such as this. I am hardly an
    > idiot, as I received a PhD in physical chemistry at only 24 and have
    > published in the area in top peer reviewed international scientific
    > journals.
    >
    > > "go button 1a" helps nobody. It's even more foolish than it looks like,
    > > since it's a link, so its alt text is effectively the link text. How useful
    > > do you expect such link texts to be?

    >
    > > You could simply change the questions themselves into links and leave out
    > > the stupid buttons.

    >
    > I am quite aware of how to use a text link and would do so if I wanted
    > to. I need no instructions from you.
    >
    > I have reached a time in life when I don't care much what others
    > think. No matter what you do, you can not please everyone all of the
    > time, I do what I think best. I am not at all upset. You should see
    > some of the difficult people I have had to deal with over the years -
    > journal referees, journal editors, and government bureaucrats, among
    > others. You soon have a fairly tough skin after dealing with some of
    > these. How about showing us some of your best web pages in the style
    > you like to write. You appear to have been writing pages for a long
    > time, and many, including myself, might benefit by viewing the code.
    >
    >
    >
    > > --
    > > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I am most grateful for all the comments and assistance I am receiving.
    Firstly I should explain that, although I have constructed many
    hundreds of web pages over the last 8 years, I am entirely self taught
    and have utilised simple web authoring packages like Word, Frontpage,
    Mozilla etc. I have a sparse knowledge of html but have relied on web
    editors -- which I suppose is what the vast majority of html laymen
    like myself utilise. Html validation is something I am trying to come
    to grips with. I can now see the function of the ALT attribute -- but
    it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
    pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
    separate description (and that would be a very time consuming
    procedure). I refer you to a simple website I am currently
    constructing that has, at the moment, numerous validation errors and
    has the button links that I referred to: www.pleaselookitup.com

    It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
    be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
    the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
    misunderstood the reasoning?
     
    Lsimmons5, Jun 1, 2007
    #10
  11. Lsimmons5

    Neredbojias Guest

    On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:49:26 GMT Lsimmons5 scribed:

    > It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
    > be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
    > the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
    > misunderstood the reasoning?


    There's black and white, and then there's gray. Your reasoning sounds
    correct but may need latitude.

    --
    Neredbojias
    He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
     
    Neredbojias, Jun 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Lsimmons5

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    > > Scripsit cwdjrxyz:

    >
    > I am quite aware of how to use a text link and would do so if I wanted
    > to. I need no instructions from you.
    >
    > I have reached a time in life when I don't care much what others
    > think.


    Not sure why Mr. Korpela went in so hard on you, I mean it is not
    as if anyone can really stop others giving advice in good faith.

    While your alt text is not ideal, it is not so bad for someone
    who actually sees only the text. "go button 1a" next to "1a. I
    want to know how much it's worth" would be _very much more_ than
    useless. In other words it could be quite helpful.

    But, quite frankly, if you had a dying wish and said to me,
    "dorayme, please change nothing on my site but do put in the alt
    texts which I had no time to make, I would make it, to keep with
    the example, alt="Find out". And ditto with every single one, all
    by Find and replace in one fell swoop. of course, it would be
    wrong because almost any beings's alt text is criticised by
    someone else on this planet. It is either wrong in principle or
    wrong in substance or wrong by simply not needing to exist
    because the conditions of its existence are unnecessary.

    JK's point about simply making the text links is one that stands
    out as the obvious thing to do on simple aesthetic grounds: less
    is more. It is likely that this "over egging the pudding" design
    decision lays behind his irritability.

    I recall you often making informative contributions.

    How am I going? I am doing the Dale Carnegie course in Conflict
    Management and am just practising here. It is part of my
    assignment for first term.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 1, 2007
    #12
  13. Scripsit Lsimmons5:

    > On Jun 1, 8:47 am, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:


    You should quote (or paraphrase) only the relevant part of the message that
    you are commenting on. In this case, that message contained nothing
    relevant, so perhaps you should have sent a followup to some other message.

    > I can now see the function of the ALT attribute -- but
    > it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
    > pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
    > separate description (and that would be a very time consuming
    > procedure).


    They need different alt texts of course, since they contain (or at least
    should) contain different texts in image format or otherwise different
    symbols.

    > www.pleaselookitup.com


    It's hardly so time-consuming to type in the texts that you now have in the
    images only. There's some extra work _now_, since it was not handled when
    the images were created (and someone typed in the texts in the first place).
    But the real culprit is the use of images for linking. If you used text
    links, you would have typed in the text once, and that's it.

    In fact, you could still upgrade to text links. The somewhat button-like
    images that you use for linking could probably be quite reasonably
    implemented as styled text links so that the appearance is similar if not
    better. This would also solve the legibility problem - even though I can
    _see_ the images, they are considerably more difficult to read than normal
    text, and links _should_ be _easier_.

    > It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
    > be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
    > the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
    > misunderstood the reasoning?


    There's no "W3C approval". The W3C does not have any approval process for
    web pages (except perhaps its internal quality control for its own pages,
    and that control must be, er, not quite perfect). The HTML syntax rules make
    the alt attribute mandatory, but they don't say anything meaningful about
    its value. On the other hand, the prose of HTML specs and the W3C WAI
    recommendations specify the meaning of alt attributes, so you would not
    conform to W3C specifications (only the formalized syntax) if you throw in
    alt attributes with useless or worse than useless values.

    Besides, what would you need "W3C approval" for? But you need accessibility
    (including useful alt attributes) in order to be accessible to all people.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 1, 2007
    #13
  14. Lsimmons5

    Bergamot Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >> Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
    >>
    >> > Go to the pagehttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/. Note the image at the
    >> > bottom

    >>
    >> The alt text repeats the image caption.

    >
    > it cycles at random many pictures of great interest to lovers of fine
    > wine.
    > I really care nothing about your opinion


    You have missed the point. The problem is the alt text on the photo
    repeats the caption, which is incorrect. Read it out loud with images
    turned off and actually *listen* to it. Blank alt text would be better
    than duplicating the caption, but I'm sure you can find something more
    meaningful in context. Are they rare wines? If so, you can say so.

    The alt text on the gold bars down the side of the page is incorrect,
    too. "gold frame side" is meaningless in any context. This should
    definitely be blank instead.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Jun 1, 2007
    #14
  15. Lsimmons5

    Dan Guest

    On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bergamot <> wrote:
    > You have missed the point. The problem is the alt text on the photo
    > repeats the caption, which is incorrect. Read it out loud with images
    > turned off and actually *listen* to it. Blank alt text would be better
    > than duplicating the caption, but I'm sure you can find something more
    > meaningful in context. Are they rare wines? If so, you can say so.


    Yeah... that "duplicating the caption" issue is what I refer to as the
    "Double Double Vision Vision problem", where a text-mode browser or
    screen reader would see a repetition of the same content twice.

    Jukka could have been a bit more tactful in making his (valid) points,
    though.

    --
    Dan
     
    Dan, Jun 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Lsimmons5

    Dan Guest

    On Jun 1, 4:49 am, Lsimmons5 <> wrote:
    > to grips with. I can now see the function of the ALT attribute -- but
    > it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
    > pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
    > separate description (and that would be a very time consuming
    > procedure). I refer you to a simple website I am currently
    > constructing that has, at the moment, numerous validation errors and
    > has the button links that I referred to:www.pleaselookitup.com


    Navigation-link buttons are among the things where it's most important
    to have proper ALT attributes, but also among the easiest to do;
    simply use ALT text that corresponds to the text on the button. If
    the button says "HOME", use alt="HOME" on it. The idea is that the
    image can be replaced with the text (as on a text-only browser, or an
    audio screen reader) and provide the same navigation information.

    --
    Dan
     
    Dan, Jun 1, 2007
    #16
  17. Scripsit Dan:

    > If the button says "HOME", use alt="HOME" on it.


    Rather, alt="home". There's no reason to SHOUT in the alt text, even if you
    SHOUT in the text in an image. It can make a difference especially in speech
    synthesis: all-caps text might sometimes be taken as an abbreviation
    (initialism) and spelled out letter by letter.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 1, 2007
    #17
  18. Lsimmons5

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Lsimmons5 <> wrote:

    > it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
    > pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
    > separate description


    No, this is not correct in all circumstances. If, whether for
    good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
    as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
    have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
    image. I remind you that in his example, the go buttons were just
    devices that took you to answers to questions that were already
    displayed in text on their left. Quite appropriate would be
    something like "Find out" or "Find out the answer to the
    question" or even, over verbosely, but with sure footedness,
    "Click to see the answer to the question on your left" - (don't
    even think of _really_ putting the latter!).

    There is no short "alt text for dummies" book, no really simple
    algorithm that will tell you what to say in alt text, it depends
    on the context. To construct alt text requires you to be someone
    who understands a little bit about other people, to be someone
    with a little imagination and understanding about blind people,
    about people with images turned off, about failure of images to
    be delivered from servers and so on and to make alternative
    provision for communication to cover such events in particular
    contexts. Not someone who buries his head in rule books and
    standards manuals alone.

    Simply imagine how you can help someone who does not see the
    image at all. You need to do something to help them in your
    communications. If the picture is not a filler or a part of the
    decoration especially, you need to convey something to replace
    it, either its content or function.

    As for what is or is not a decoration, this is not a question
    that has a definite answer in all circumstances. You can put in
    alt text for these if you wish, if only to explicitly convey that
    it is merely part of the page's pretty look and therefore safely
    to be ignored. But even here, the rule book nerds will get it
    woodenly wrong. Some people who do not see the decorative parts
    might nevertheless be interested from time to time (unlikely but
    this kind of thing does happen) in decoration. A pure mission to
    communicate all would demand you provide for even such unlikely
    interest. But no one would blame you if you did not.. I will make
    a comment about alt="" below

    > It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
    > be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
    > the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
    > misunderstood the reasoning?


    About this business of alt="" for some situations. You have a
    choice. You can do this if there is a clause in your contract to
    supply validated source. Or if you simply cannot bear the sight
    of being rebuffed by a report from W3C. You can cheat and fudge
    to get over this line if you want. And you better like the sight
    of source strewn with dummy alts more than you like strictly
    unvalidated code. Yes, you guessed it, you can also forget all
    about putting in all that alt="" and what is the worst thing that
    can happen as a result of just this? Nothing really of any
    consequence. The real thing to be worried about is the true value
    of those pics that cause this little dilemma for the neurotic
    purist.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 2, 2007
    #18
  19. Lsimmons5

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jun 1, 11:33 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    > Lsimmons5 <> wrote:
    > > it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
    > > pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
    > > separate description

    >
    > No, this is not correct in all circumstances. If, whether for
    > good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
    > as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
    > have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
    > image. I remind you that in his example, the go buttons were just
    > devices that took you to answers to questions that were already
    > displayed in text on their left. Quite appropriate would be
    > something like "Find out" or "Find out the answer to the
    > question" or even, over verbosely, but with sure footedness,
    > "Click to see the answer to the question on your left" - (don't
    > even think of _really_ putting the latter!).
    >
    > There is no short "alt text for dummies" book, no really simple
    > algorithm that will tell you what to say in alt text, it depends
    > on the context. To construct alt text requires you to be someone
    > who understands a little bit about other people, to be someone
    > with a little imagination and understanding about blind people,
    > about people with images turned off, about failure of images to
    > be delivered from servers and so on and to make alternative
    > provision for communication to cover such events in particular
    > contexts. Not someone who buries his head in rule books and
    > standards manuals alone.
    >
    > Simply imagine how you can help someone who does not see the
    > image at all. You need to do something to help them in your
    > communications. If the picture is not a filler or a part of the
    > decoration especially, you need to convey something to replace
    > it, either its content or function.
    >
    > As for what is or is not a decoration, this is not a question
    > that has a definite answer in all circumstances. You can put in
    > alt text for these if you wish, if only to explicitly convey that
    > it is merely part of the page's pretty look and therefore safely
    > to be ignored. But even here, the rule book nerds will get it
    > woodenly wrong. Some people who do not see the decorative parts
    > might nevertheless be interested from time to time (unlikely but
    > this kind of thing does happen) in decoration. A pure mission to
    > communicate all would demand you provide for even such unlikely
    > interest. But no one would blame you if you did not.. I will make
    > a comment about alt="" below
    >
    > > It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
    > > be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
    > > the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
    > > misunderstood the reasoning?

    >
    > About this business of alt="" for some situations. You have a
    > choice. You can do this if there is a clause in your contract to
    > supply validated source. Or if you simply cannot bear the sight
    > of being rebuffed by a report from W3C. You can cheat and fudge
    > to get over this line if you want. And you better like the sight
    > of source strewn with dummy alts more than you like strictly
    > unvalidated code. Yes, you guessed it, you can also forget all
    > about putting in all that alt="" and what is the worst thing that
    > can happen as a result of just this? Nothing really of any
    > consequence. The real thing to be worried about is the true value
    > of those pics that cause this little dilemma for the neurotic
    > purist.


    Just a little background. The site for which I gave the url belongs to
    alt.food.wine. It took about a year to develop. This is an
    international group. Different people from the US, France, Australia,
    New Zealand, etc. agreed to write some of the sections. Then a
    professor at a US university with an interest in wine, edited
    everything. This was posted, there often was much discussion, and
    changes were made. Once a text version of each section was finalized,
    it was added to the FAQ posted, and it soon became apparent that this
    was becoming a very long document indeed. Since I had some spare web
    space, I offered to put up a domain for the FAQ. After looking at the
    length of sections, it soon became apparent that putting everything on
    the same page would result in very slow loading on slow dialup, and
    some of the users of the group around the world only have slow dialup.
    Thus, to take care of this problem, I put each section on a single
    page. One section was so long that I ended up in having sections 3a
    and 3b. I did no writing on this site, other than what was needed to
    put the basic text on web pages. As the site developed, it was
    discussed by the group, and some changes in colors, spacings, fonts,
    etc. were made. If you read some of the sections in detail, you will
    find that some of them have links within them. For these "secondary"
    links, I used text links. For the primary section links, I used the
    buttons that are very easy to see. I checked the site on many browsers
    that I do not have, including a text browser. There were free sites in
    Germany and the UK that allowed me to do this. I also checked the site
    on non-official validators for the disabled. For instance, I found
    some of my links were too close together for the blind and moved them
    a bit. These "validators" are also fussy that alt be used for
    everything. I also checked the pages on Opera set for a very small
    screen size that approaches that of some small devices. The pages
    still could be read well enough.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jun 2, 2007
    #19
  20. Lsimmons5

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > On Jun 1, 11:33 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > >
    > > Lsimmons5 <> wrote:
    > > > it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
    > > > pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
    > > > separate description

    > >
    > > No, this is not correct in all circumstances. If, whether for
    > > good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
    > > as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
    > > have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
    > > image. I remind you that in his example, ...

    >
    > Just a little background.


    You will realise, I hope, that I was not meaning in my post to in
    any way criticise you, just to discuss and make some general
    remarks about alt text. Your example was handy to make one
    particular point about alt text and that is that there is no
    formula for doing them and general guidelines almost always have
    exceptions.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 2, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marcel_St=F6r?=

    alt attribute for input tag

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marcel_St=F6r?=, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    10,849
    Sid Ismail
    Nov 28, 2003
  2. Thomas Fuchs

    IMG ALT Attribute with Mozilla

    Thomas Fuchs, Apr 17, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    4,533
    Tonnie
    Apr 17, 2005
  3. Adrienne Boswell

    Alt attribute woes

    Adrienne Boswell, Mar 17, 2011, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    489
    William Gill
    Mar 18, 2011
  4. Alan Howard
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,904
    Alan Howard
    Jul 5, 2004
  5. trallon
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    100
    Davey Erwin
    Sep 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page