required attribute "ALT" not specified .

[Bergamot]

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.

No, not really. Try that using a browser that can navigate just to
links. Opera maintains a separate link list, as do many screen readers.
If the alt text is all the same, it is useless out of context. You might
as well just say "click here".

 

[dorayme]

No, not really. Try that using a browser that can navigate just to
links. Opera maintains a separate link list, as do many screen readers.
If the alt text is all the same, it is useless out of context. You might
as well just say "click here".

OK. I was not that aware of the likely use of pages that just
show links in a context such as that particular page. Had I been,
I would not have said "entirely appropriate". I can't quite think
why anyone would just go to a page of links in the example I was
covering, but there may be practical reasons? It is a nice point
nevertheless, so thanks.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

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.

You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
example:

<h1><img src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company
Name</h1>

or

<h1><a href="index.php" title="Return to Company Index Page"><img
src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company Name</a>
</h1>

vs

<p><img src="rolo.png" alt="Our cat Rolo sitting at the window"
height="100" width="100"> This picture of our Maine Coon, Rolo, was taken
when we first got her. Rolo loves to sit at the window and wait for the
birds, then she "sings" to them.</p>

Notice 1 and 2 have no alt text because they are for decoration. The
second example uses the title attribute to give the user a hint to the
destination. The third example DOES use have alt text because it is NOT
purely for decoration.

 

[dorayme]

You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
example:

<h1><img src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company
Name</h1>

You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
consequences beyond failing validation because of it?

 

[Neredbojias]

You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
example:

<h1><img src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company
Name</h1>

or

<h1><a href="index.php" title="Return to Company Index Page"><img
src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company Name</a>
</h1>

vs

<p><img src="rolo.png" alt="Our cat Rolo sitting at the window"
height="100" width="100"> This picture of our Maine Coon, Rolo, was
taken when we first got her. Rolo loves to sit at the window and wait
for the birds, then she "sings" to them.</p>

Notice 1 and 2 have no alt text because they are for decoration. The
second example uses the title attribute to give the user a hint to the
destination. The third example DOES use have alt text because it is
NOT purely for decoration.

Being out-of-scope content-wise and being just "for decoration" are not the
same thing. I suggest both the first and second images could benefit from
alt text as well.

 

[Bergamot]

You can also leave it out altogether.

You can leave any attribute out, but that doesn't make it a good practice.

What are the bad
consequences beyond failing validation because of it?

Look at said page in Lynx or any graphical browser with image loading
disabled and see for yourself.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit dorayme:

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.

No, it is not. It violates the basic principle that different links require
different link texts. There are serious usability and accessibility reasons
to this principle. When an image is a link, the alt text acts as the link
text in essential ways.

Try using a speech browser in "links mode", and you'll see. Er... I mean
you'll understand.

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.

The _links_ still have the same texts, and that's what matters to programs
that work on links. The "go buttons" are just pointless and childish. That's
why there's no reasonable way to write alt texts for them.

There is no short "alt text for dummies" book,

There's an "alt text for all" page,
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html
which begins with a short summary that helps you write good alt texts in
most cases, and the rest helps with more complicated cases.

About this business of alt="" for some situations.

To me, the question seems to be whether one could write alt="" just as a
method of getting away with validation, with no regard to the meaning and
purpose of the image. The correct answer is that it would naturally satisfy
validity requirement and would be either undescribably stupid or
disgustingly dishonest.

You can do this if there is a clause in your contract to
supply validated source.

Cheating is possible. You would be cheating if you did something wrong to
satisfy the letter but not the purpose and intended meaning of a clause in a
contract.

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.

That would fall into the undescribably stupid category. It's like cheating
when playing solitaire.

 

[dorayme]

Scripsit dorayme:


No, it is not. It violates the basic principle that different links require
different link texts. There are serious usability and accessibility reasons
to this principle. When an image is a link, the alt text acts as the link
text in essential ways.

First, it was suggested previously to me, at least by
implication, that there is some likelihood that someone would be
usefully looking at a list of links on a page divorced from the
context of that page. I agreed that to cover this unlikely
possibility I should not have used the words "entirely
appropriate". The words should have been weakened to "appropriate
enough". If I am beaten back further by further argument, I will
be happy enough because of its educative value.

I do not mean to be provocative when I say that there could be
situations where I would strengthen the words, not weaken them.
For example in a playful site that has prizes for guessing
answers and is so constructed as to mislead people for playful
reasons. Or even an educative site (either about html or not)
where the student is required to be tested in various ways.

The basic principle that you are upholding is a fine thing in the
way many principles in any field are. But they are not sacred
objects. They have a purpose. When that purpose is inappropriate,
it is often small mindedness to follow the rule. Yes, I do
understand that sometimes it is just simpler not to have to think
about things and just apply a useful principle everywhere to save
time and energy. But, while this is fine for oneself, it is
entirely a different matter when getting up to criticise someone
else for not following the rule in every circumstance.

I have always respected the way you often show how you see the
raison d¹être for the rules in web design (in good
communication). And I would bet quids that you would not stoop to
use communication standards purely for fashion or to seem correct.

In the particular page which obviously so infuriated you, I do
believe that the very existence of those buttons were the crime
for usability, adding unnecessary things. As you say in your
post:

I was suggesting quite "good enough" in the circumstances. I was
also trying to be a bit nice to poor old cwdjrxyz as he was being
kicked in the gutter. I was passing by and even martians have
hearts you know!

I am not altogether sure of how to take the rest of your post,
whether they are meant in criticism or endorsement or
amplification? I saw little with which I would disagree and
indeed, they express views I have written on.

 

[dorayme]

You can leave any attribute out, but that doesn't make it a good practice.

It was not a general mindless practice I was talking about. I was
not saying its ok to leave out alt attributes out full stop. If
you are saying that it is good practice to use alt="", you have
given no argument at all.

Look at said page in Lynx or any graphical browser with image loading
disabled and see for yourself.

This is what I would see if my suggestion were implemented:

1a. I want to know how much it's worth _Find out_

1b. I want to know whether it's OK to drink _Find out_

1c. Will it still taste good? _Find out_

And this is quite satisfactory given the unwise insistence on the
buttons in the first place.

Please do not make the point again about a pure links page. I
have replied about that and the above is not to be confused with
that issue.

 

[Bergamot]

I was
not saying its ok to leave out alt attributes out full stop.

Huh? It looks to me that is exactly what you said:
Leaving alt out and using blank alt are 2 very different things.

This is what I would see if my suggestion were implemented:

Your suggestion of using the same alt text on every link is a poor one,
but I was referring to leaving alt out altogether.

Please do not make the point again about a pure links page.

Just because it is something you don't use yourself doesn't mean nobody
else has a reason to. If it weren't a useful feature for some percent of
users, browser makers wouldn't bother to implement it. Regardless, link
text needs to be meaningful out of context. Using the same alt text on
every link is not meaningful.

I
have replied about that and the above is not to be confused with
that issue.

You are the one who is confused about alt text. You should stop giving
advice on the subject until you learn more about it.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme wrote:

Huh? It looks to me that is exactly what you said:

Please read more closely what I said and try to operate on the
principle of a charitable interpretation. If you attend to what I
have been saying you will not be able to draw the conclusion that
I think it is ok to leave out alt text whenever one feels like
it.

Leaving alt out and using blank alt are 2 very different things.

Of course they are 2 different things. The difference is great in
some cases, not very great in others and this is what you are
missing.

Your suggestion of using the same alt text on every link is a poor one,

It is poor because of someone wanting to look at that particular
page's links out of context? But you must reflect on whether that
would that be an intelligent thing to do given the nature of that
page. It simply would not be. If someone by accident came across
the links on their own, it would not principally be the naming of
the alt text that caused them to be miffed but rather the fact
that the buttons were an unnecessary addition to the questions
and need to be seen with the questions. I do not defend the
design. If the author had gone to the trouble of putting alt text
in that would have been really meaningful, then he would have
included the question in the button too in something like, "the
answer to the question "blah blah". And if he had done this, he
would not have bothered to so design the question and answer in
the first place. I stand by my view that it was in this
particular case in the circumstances fairly appropriate to make
the alt text all the same along the lines I suggested.

but I was referring to leaving alt out altogether.

And leaving out alt text for some decorative and other non
content objects is something I wish to look into more closely.
Suggest a page where there are a lot of these things and I will
try to look at it with images turned off and think about the
difference between "" and no alt at all.

Just because it is something you don't use yourself doesn't mean nobody
else has a reason to.

No, you have this wrong. It was not because of this at all.

If it weren't a useful feature for some percent of
users, browser makers wouldn't bother to implement it.

It can be a useful feature. But in the context of the page in
question, the big trouble was elsewhere. My alt text suggestion
did not make things worse for everyone. On the whole it made
things better.

Regardless, link
text needs to be meaningful out of context. Using the same alt text on
every link is not meaningful.

This is simply not true. You are failing to imagine all manner of
things.

You are the one who is confused about alt text. You should stop giving
advice on the subject until you learn more about it.

I would have thought this would be beneath you but obviously it
is not. I was separating two issues and you took an opportunity
to insult me. Your paraphrase of my advice would be very
different to my advice. It is quite extraordinary for you to
suppose this is some sort of help desk and I really think I am
giving authoritative advice. I say things because I am thinking
about them and hope for people to discuss the ideas. Not insult
me for speaking in good faith.

 

[Ben C]

dorayme wrote: [...]

Please do not make the point again about a pure links page.

Just because it is something you don't use yourself doesn't mean nobody
else has a reason to. If it weren't a useful feature for some percent of
users, browser makers wouldn't bother to implement it.

Yes but you can't expect every page to work in every accessibility
feature of every browser. There's nothing in the HTML spec I can see
about anything like Opera's View Links feature. It makes no sense on a
www page to target specific boxes of tricks in particular browsers.

Regardless, link text needs to be meaningful out of context. Using the
same alt text on every link is not meaningful.

But the buttons all look the same. Why should people who don't see the
images get better information than those who do?

This alt text is on the <img> not on the link. It's not "link text", but
"img text". Therefore if there's a problem here it's surely the fact
that the buttons are all the same? If they are all the same, their alt
text might as well be too.

 

[Bergamot]

dorayme wrote: [...]

Please do not make the point again about a pure links page.

Just because it is something you don't use yourself doesn't mean nobody
else has a reason to. If it weren't a useful feature for some percent of
users, browser makers wouldn't bother to implement it.

Yes but you can't expect every page to work in every accessibility
feature of every browser. There's nothing in the HTML spec I can see
about anything like Opera's View Links feature. It makes no sense on a
www page to target specific boxes of tricks in particular browsers.

It's not really about targeting specific browsers. I used Opera as an
example because it's something you can easily check into yourself. The
same kind of feature exists in most screen readers, and no doubt other
browsers or browser extensions, too.

But the buttons all look the same.

That's not relevant. The alt text for an individual button is.

This alt text is on the <img> not on the link. It's not "link text", but
"img text".

You mention the W3C. They don't have to have specs for everything, but
there is a reference to this general concept in the WCAG 2.0 draft (soon
to be a recommendation):
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#H30

"When an image is the only content of a link, the text alternative for
the image describes the unique function of the link."

Note "unique function". "Go" is not unique when used multiple times for
different link destinations.

Therefore if there's a problem here it's surely the fact
that the buttons are all the same?

Yes, that is the first problem. It would have been better overall if the
author used the question for the link instead of that 'go' button, but
the problem can be overcome with better alt text.

 

[dorayme]

You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
example:

<h1><img src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company
Name</h1>

or

<h1><a href="index.php" title="Return to Company Index Page"><img
src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company Name</a>
</h1>

When

<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#
H30>

becomes law (ferreted out by Bergamot), this will not be right
for the latter. Severe penalties will apply for not filling out
between the "s

Personally I like the title idea and have used it myself;
sometimes, even for text links as an additional (optional) help.

I guess it does make sense to also put in replacement text in the
alt for those situations where the title does not work or is too
quick in appearance or not available for other reasons (mouseless
browsing?)

This is so in general. But the law is still not a little god and
there are exceptional circumstances. When the level of hysteria
about this matter gets to fever pitch and people are demanding to
see the exceptions and they put up some money, that is when I
deliver and collect.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
consequences beyond failing validation because of it?

You've obviously never looked at such a page in a text browser such
as Lynx.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme

You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
consequences beyond failing validation because of it?

If you leave out the alt attribute in Opera, for example, it creates an
image placeholder that says Image, if you use alt="", it does not. You
would be surprised how many slice and dice sites I've been to that have
Image on them 20 times or more. This is especially true if you turn
images off (and I sometimes do even though I have broadband).

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme

If you leave out the alt attribute in Opera, for example, it creates an
image placeholder that says Image, if you use alt="", it does not. You
would be surprised how many slice and dice sites I've been to that have
Image on them 20 times or more. This is especially true if you turn
images off (and I sometimes do even though I have broadband).

Since the alt text is often needed by the disabled, it sometimes pays
to include it for absolutely all images, even those serving for
nonessential pure decoration, even if using alt="" many be quite legal
formally. In the past disabled people where grateful for any help they
might get, because so often they got none. However, at least in the
US, as the years have passed, some disabled activists have become very
vocal about their rights. There attitude might be to label all images
used with alt and let them decide if they are interested or not. Or,
what gives you the right to decide for them only what you think they
should want to read about - after all you likely do not have their
disability. A few months ago a woman, who appeared very well
qualified, was selected to head the leading university for deaf people
in the US. She apparently could use and understand sign language very
well. However she was not deaf. Many of the students did not think a
non-deaf person could be qualified, no matter what other
qualifications were. There were large student demonstrations. In the
end someone else was given the job. I repeat this story here not to
argue the merits of it pro or con. I am just pointing out that if you
are writing a web site likely to be used by large numbers of disabled,
it is best not to assume that they do not need something.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Since the alt text is often needed by the disabled, it sometimes pays
to include it for absolutely all images, even those serving for
nonessential pure decoration, even if using alt="" many be quite legal
formally.

Actually, with the advent of CSS and separation of presentation from
content, any images would have to have some semantic meaning, and
therefore, would need alt text.

Even:
<img
src="http://images.fedex.com/images/globalhome/globalhome_fedex_corp_logo
..gif" alt="Purple letters spelling Fed, followed by white letters
spelling Ex where the lower portion of the E becomes the tail of a right
pointing arrow" width="152" height="38">

 

[dorayme]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme


If you leave out the alt attribute in Opera, for example, it creates an
image placeholder that says Image, if you use alt="", it does not. You
would be surprised how many slice and dice sites I've been to that have
Image on them 20 times or more. This is especially true if you turn
images off (and I sometimes do even though I have broadband).

Just for now, I cannot say too much about alt text. My doctor has
forbidden it and has given me special pills to cope. "AltText
medication" it says on the bottle label, take two if you begin to
think about alt text in HTML. It is a painful subject and I have
the theory that no matter what anyone says, no matter what their
status, they will be not quite right in at least some respects.
It is possibly the most vexing subject in any field ever to have
been aired.

I will just say 3 things:

1. For now, I am thinking that the alt attribute is sadly lacking
in implementation on browsers. One has to find workarounds (sure,
there are plenty, that is not a puzzle) if the text is long and
the space reserved for the pic none too wide. But one should not
have to - at the very least one should be able to style the alt
text to wrap. One can make it bigger and smaller and fancy fonted
and coloured and all sorts of things. But get it to wrap inside a
dimensioned space reserved for a pic that is not loaded (either
deliberately by the user or due to a mistake beyond the user's
control) and it seems impossible. It is impossible, yes? I think
it would be nice.

2. The whole subject of decoration is a difficult one. I tend to
no longer use such things and so perhaps I do not think about it
all so clearly (I use bg images now and then). But there are a
number of different ways to go. In my opinion, if someone is
going to use a mass of spacers and fiddly decorative things, yes,
you are likely to be right that alt="" is best for many users
with images turned off for the reasons that "blank text" looks
cleaner, it acts like 'whiteout', it is something non existent
but useful.

3. If the picture is decorative in a way, but nevertheless
_interesting_, not some trivial thing, not a spacer, alt text
_should_ be a way to provide for someone not seeing the picture
to get some sense of it. See the Australian film "Proof" for the
idea, it is about a blind photographer and he gets folk to
describe the pics he takes (and, if i recall, gets to pick up
nice ladies too (photographers are quite notorious you know...).
It is not at all a silly thing. Do screen readers read _long_ alt
texts? Again I know there are other ways to deliver text about a
picture. But our subject is alt text, not something else.

4. Finally, at

<http://tinyurl.com/34z6kf>

1, 5 and 7 behave one way; 2, 3, 6 and 8 another way and 4 yet
another under images turned off deliberately in Opera. While
under images on, 1, 2 and 6 behave one way; 3 another, 4 another,
7 another and 8 yet another. I am not that puzzled about these
differences. I am trying to come to terms with them.

While under Firefox, 1, 5 and 7 behave one way; 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8
behave another.

As for the links (9 to 16, am too tired now to describe). In iCab
it is all a bit different again.

Perhaps this table will be useful to someone or other who wants
to check how different browsers behave with alt text. Important
to distinguish between a deliberate turning off of images from
them merely failing to appear. I have "misnamed" some files to
mimic the latter.

Adrienne, must rush now and take 2 altText tablets immediately.

 

[dorayme]

I will just say 3 things:

OK, 4 things...