what do you think about this site?

[Dylan Parry]

Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Red E. Kilowatt scraped:

The purpose of alt text is to identify graphics that people either can't
see or aren't downloading, so why wouldn't you use the alt text to
identify the image as the site logo?

No, the purpose of alt text is to act as a _text replacement_ for when
an image is not or cannot be displayed (a subtle difference from your
definition).

One should not give alt text such as "Company Name Logo" but something
more appropriate, such as "Company Name". Whether it is the logo is
neither here nor there, and including the word "logo" in the alt text
reduces it to a description not a replacement, which is *not* the
purpose of alt text.

Also, setting alt text to "" is not just to get the page to validate but
rather to say to the user-agent that if the image cannot or is not
displayed then the suitable alt text is "", ie. the image has no meaning
other than as eye-candy and can be safely ignored by the user. If no
alt text was given, however, the user-agent may choose to display the
word "image" or even "image.ext", which is less than helpful and may
lead the user to think that the image was actual content, or worse still
it would litter the page with the word "image" making it difficult to read.

 

[Safalra]

The purpose of alt text is not so that a page will validate.

The purpose of alt text is to identify graphics that people either can't
see or aren't downloading,

Not quite; alt-text exists as a primitive mechanism for alternative
content. In other words, the alt-text should serve the same purpose as
the image.

so why wouldn't you use the alt text to
identify the image as the site logo?

The purpose of a logo is to identify the organisation it represents. In
text this is the same as just stating the name of the organisation, so
the alt-text should be set to the name of the organisation; unless of
course the page has already stated the name of the organisation, in
which case the alt-text should be blank. (In a visual representation
the logo might be designed to have connotations not associated with the
name in plain text - for example the logo might look 'fun' or 'serious'
- but this cannot easily be represented in text. We could imagine a
future where stylesheets aimed at speech-browsers could specify that
the voice sounds 'excited'. Then again, the spam would be even more
annoying...)

 

[William Tasso]

Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster,alt.html
From the safety of the Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
cafeteria

...
The purpose of alt text is not so that a page will validate.

Correct, and it should be remembered that validation in and of itself is
not an end but rather a means.

 

[GreyWyvern]

And lo, William Tasso didst speak in alt.www.webmaster,alt.html:

Correct, and it should be remembered that validation in and of itself is
not an end but rather a means.

Validation is like a spell-checker. I knew a lot of peers in school for
whom the spell-checker was the last step in preparing papers for
submission; proofreading be damned.

I'm not sure about other languages, but with English, it sometimes becomes
necessary to break a few rules for the sake of literary expression. This,
however, is only done when one has a very firm grasp of the rules being
broken, as well as a thorough understanding of the reasons for doing so in
the first place.

The same holds true for (X)HTML, AFAIC.

Grey

 

[Charles Sweeney]

Dylan Parry wrote

Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Red E. Kilowatt scraped:


No, the purpose of alt text is to act as a _text replacement_ for when
an image is not or cannot be displayed (a subtle difference from your
definition).

One should not give alt text such as "Company Name Logo" but something
more appropriate, such as "Company Name". Whether it is the logo is
neither here nor there, and including the word "logo" in the alt text
reduces it to a description not a replacement, which is *not* the
purpose of alt text.

I disagree. The alt text should describe the picture. If the image is
a logo, I want to know it's a logo.

When I first went online, due to a very slow modem I always surfed with
images switched off (same even today using a mobile phone as a modem).
A good description of the image made sense to me, and helped me
understand what the page was about.

Tell me this, if the picture is of a man getting presented with a
cheque, what alt text would you use? I would use something like
"Picture of Mr A receiving a cheque from Mr B". What's wrong with that?

Also, setting alt text to "" is not just to get the page to validate
but rather to say to the user-agent that if the image cannot or is not
displayed then the suitable alt text is "", ie. the image has no
meaning
other than as eye-candy and can be safely ignored by the user.

I wouldn't use the alt attribute in such a case. If you must use it,
then "meaningless image" would be better.

If no
alt text was given, however, the user-agent may choose to display the
word "image" or even "image.ext", which is less than helpful and may
lead the user to think that the image was actual content, or worse
still it would litter the page with the word "image" making it
difficult to read.

In which case they should get a better user agent. If the picture
cannot be displayed, and there is no alt text, the agent should ignore
it.

 

[GreyWyvern]

I disagree. The alt text should describe the picture. If the image is
a logo, I want to know it's a logo.

Yesh, that is what the "title" attribute is for. The obvious alt text for
a logo would be the name of the company/organization it represents. This
is the *function* of alt text, it's not up for debate. The fact that
current browsers *cough*MSIE*cough* mishandle it by treating it the same
as a "title" attribute will not be the case forever.

When I first went online, due to a very slow modem I always surfed with
images switched off (same even today using a mobile phone as a modem).
A good description of the image made sense to me, and helped me
understand what the page was about.

Good alt text should do that for photographs.

Tell me this, if the picture is of a man getting presented with a
cheque, what alt text would you use? I would use something like
"Picture of Mr A receiving a cheque from Mr B". What's wrong with that?

That's not bad alt text, for a photograph. Alternatively, you could use
the longdesc attribute to link to a URI with a more detailed description
of the image. However, longdesc is not really widely supported yet,
despite being part of the HTML 4.01 spec.

I wouldn't use the alt attribute in such a case. If you must use it,
then "meaningless image" would be better.

Huh? So if someone is surfing your website with images off, you'd rather
see this:

+-----------------+ +-----------------+
|meaningless image|Welcome to my website!|meaningless image|
+-----------------+ +-----------------+

.... than this:

Welcome to my website!

???

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

In which case they should get a better user agent. If the picture
cannot be displayed, and there is no alt text, the agent should ignore
it.

Just like you "want to know it's a logo", I'd like to know if there were
any images supposed to be on the site which didn't load. This is
especially good while developing. Thus I am happy that Opera replaces
broken images with:

+-----+
|Image|
+-----+

.... rather than hiding them against my wishes. If I feel that the image
is not worth even this bit of display, I can give it alt="" which allows
the browser to assume with confidence that the image is not worth a
textual representation of any kind.

Grey

 

[Charles Sweeney]

Safalra wrote

The purpose of a logo is to identify the organisation it represents.

Yes but crucially, the purpose of a logo is to *visually* identify the
organisation it represents. Nothing else.

As you go some way towards saying, you cannot represent a purely visual
sensation with words. To try to do so is ludicrous. Therefore the best
you can do is tell the user that there is an image there, and give a
short desription of it.

In text this is the same as just stating the name of the organisation,

It's not. It's anything but the same. You don't get the mood, the
feel, the ethos, the subliminal influences. A crap logo identifies the
organisation, but also tells you (amongst other things) that they may
not be a serious outfit. Just as a quality logo has the opposite
effect. Text can't do that.

Again, better to give the user the organisation name, and tell them
there's a logo there. Sighted people get the organisation name, and can
choose to view the logo. Blind people still get the organisation name.
What possible drawback can there be to stating that there's a logo
there??

When I surf with images turned off, I find the alt text "picture of..."
very helpful. It tells me first of all that there is an image there,
and it helps me to know if I should choose to view it.

If the alt text says "organisation name logo", I might choose to view it
because I am interested in logos.

If the alt-text does not tell me it's a picture (or logo) then the page
does not read well. I see little snippets of text, but completely out
of sync with the surrounding text. But "picture of..." or "...logo"
tells me all I need to know, and does not get confused with surrounding
text.

 

[William Tasso]

Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster,alt.html
From the safety of the No thank you cafeteria

Safalra wrote


Yes but crucially, the purpose of a logo is to *visually* identify the
organisation it represents. Nothing else.

As you go some way towards saying, you cannot represent a purely visual
sensation with words. To try to do so is ludicrous. Therefore the best
you can do is tell the user that there is an image there, and give a
short desription of it.


It's not. It's anything but the same. You don't get the mood, the
feel, the ethos, the subliminal influences. A crap logo identifies the
organisation, but also tells you (amongst other things) that they may
not be a serious outfit. Just as a quality logo has the opposite
effect. Text can't do that.

No, it can't. But a text only UA/speech UA/Radio/etc. can never 'show'
the logo either. One useful treatment is to use the company name and the
strapline in such circumstances.

"Bodgit Bros IT - Making computers make cents."

Again, better to give the user the organisation name, and tell them
there's a logo there. Sighted people get the organisation name, and can
choose to view the logo. Blind people still get the organisation name.
What possible drawback can there be to stating that there's a logo
there??

What you are describing is a description of the page, rather than a
representation of its content.

When I surf with images turned off, I find the alt text "picture of..."
very helpful. It tells me first of all that there is an image there,
and it helps me to know if I should choose to view it.

If the alt text says "organisation name logo", I might choose to view it
because I am interested in logos.

Yes, that is one instance when it's useful to know there is a logo present
- surely such a researcher would be using a graphical UA?

If the alt-text does not tell me it's a picture (or logo) then the page
does not read well. I see little snippets of text, but completely out
of sync with the surrounding text.

and that is exactly the issue.

ok - one other thought to throw into the mix. The title attribute,
containing a description of the image can probably be the same regardless
of context. The alt attribute however is very much context sensitive.

But "picture of..." or "...logo"
tells me all I need to know, and does not get confused with surrounding
text.

You know what, it seems to me there are many opportunities for throwing a
completely crap page at a visitor. Also, there are few absolutes in this
issue. I suggest a useful treatment of this subject would be made by
presenting a real page from a real site and discussing/chronicling its
development in here.

 

[Nicknamezj]

I just looked at your link you gave under your name, and I saw you were
using a strict.dtd, but your html is not using the strict.dtd rules.

 

[Charles Sweeney]

GreyWyvern wrote

No. You're hung up on the mechanics of how browsers put together
pages, with all the various pieces of technology, when instead you
should be considering them part of a document structure which works
regardless if certain parts are disabled.

Not at all. I simply don't see how "Joe Bloggs logo" is a disservice to
a visitor.

If someone is browsing with images off, it's pretty certain they are
doing so for a reason. "company name logo" tells them they are
*missing* something, while using the name of the company tells them
*what* they are missing.

Not sure if you have misunderstood me. By "company name logo" I mean
(as in the example above) "Joe Bloggs logo", where "Joe Bloggs" is the
name of the company.

So "Joe Bloggs logo", tells the user that the comapny name is "Joe
Bloggs", and that there is a logo there too, which they can choose to
view or ignore.

Think about it: what is the purpose of a
company logo? Most often it is to identify the company. How does
"company name logo" identify the company?

This was discussed in another reply. A logo is a visual identifier.
You *cannot* represent an image with words. This is not up for debate.

Is all your alt text just a teaser to get people with images turned
off to load them to see what they're missing? Don't you think that's
a little presumptuous? What if your visitors are blind?

Not at all. It tells them there is an image there, and gives them a
brief description of it. If visitors are blind, they still get the same
words that a person trying to do the impossible (representing an image
with words) would use, but preceded with "Picture of..."

 

[Safalra]

GreyWyvern wrote

This was discussed in another reply. A logo is a visual identifier.
You *cannot* represent an image with words. This is not up for debate.

How come you get to decide what's up for debate? Seriously though, the
subtle features of images that lead to you saying that they cannot be
represented in words also cannot be *reliably* represented in images.
One person may think an animated logo looks stylish and shows the
company has put effort into their logo design, whereas another person
might think it looks cheap and irritating. Even if you argue that
there's a universal notion of 'amateur-looking' and
'professional-looking', this would not *only* show in an organisation's
logo but *also* in the text of their website. I don't really see how
anything can be reliably conveyed in an logo without it also being
conveyed in the general text that surrounds it.

 

[GreyWyvern]

And lo, Charles Sweeney didst speak in alt.www.webmaster,alt.html:

GreyWyvern wrote


Not at all. I simply don't see how "Joe Bloggs logo" is a disservice to
a visitor.

It isn't. Yet the "logo" tacked onto the end is quite meaningless,
revealing more about what's *missing* from the document than the
information the text conveys.

Not sure if you have misunderstood me. By "company name logo" I mean
(as in the example above) "Joe Bloggs logo", where "Joe Bloggs" is the
name of the company.

I understood you perfectly, and my reasoning still stands.

This was discussed in another reply. A logo is a visual identifier.
You *cannot* represent an image with words. This is not up for debate.

So why are you trying? Alt text does not try to "represent" the image.
It is meant *only* to convey the same basic information as the image which
could not be displayed. In the case of a logo, this information is brand
identification, not logo identification.

Not at all. It tells them there is an image there,

To what end? "An image was supposed to be here, but you can't see it."
This is certainly need-to-know information, mm-hmm.

and gives them a
brief description of it.

You want alt-text to be a description, when it is actually a fallback
replacement. In many cases, especially with photographs, a "brief"
description is OK alt-text. What I do not agree with is letting the user
*know* that the text has replaced an image in cases where the image is
*not* a photograph. This is information that just isn't necessary to
understand a document whether images are enabled or disabled.

If visitors are blind, they still get the same
words that a person trying to do the impossible (representing an image
with words) would use, but preceded with "Picture of..."

Unless your document *cannot* be understood without an element which has
been disabled by the user, explicitly notifying them that your document is
now broken makes very little sense; and makes the webmaster look like an
amateur.

Grey

 

[Els]

Which reminds me ... a few days ago I added a background image and
generally tidied up a very old page. The pic I used is quite famous to
those in the know, however it is largely obscured (almost completely in
IE).

I wanted to add some comment to the page, noting pertinant info about the
image. I settled on a short paragraph in the end, but it did occur to me
that those surfing without images would wonder wtf I was talking about and
that perhaps an image of the text (with no alt text) would be a better
choice.

Well, if you'd make it an image, there is a decent percentage of
people who will wonder what it says, cause they can't enlarge the
text. They may not be blind, but still have bad eyesight.

 

[William Tasso]

Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster,alt.html
From the safety of the LocusMeus.com cafeteria

Well, if you'd make it an image, there is a decent percentage of
people who will wonder what it says, cause they can't enlarge the
text. They may not be blind, but still have bad eyesight.

Yes - I see (oops) that, so... what's a better solution I wonder?
Obviously the (background) image cannot have alt or title attributes, nor
can it be wrapped in a link/anchor.

 

[Els]

Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster,alt.html
From the safety of the LocusMeus.com cafeteria


Yes - I see (oops) that, so... what's a better solution I wonder?
Obviously the (background) image cannot have alt or title attributes, nor
can it be wrapped in a link/anchor.

Doesn't the text in the paragraph say it is about the background
image? If so, I think you can leave it in as text. Blind visitors will
easily recognize it as 'info not needed'.

Or even better: they may suddenly remember one of their sighted
friends was looking for that most famous picture, and they will be
stoked to be able to help them, by downloading the background image
and mailing it to their friend.

 

[Charles Sweeney]

William Tasso wrote

Perhaps you would consider using a browser more suitable for your
needs when surfing with images off.

"Best viewed with..."?

 

[Charles Sweeney]

Safalra wrote

How come you get to decide what's up for debate?

lol! I was having a dig at Grey who said the same thing to me!

I read the rest of your post btw.

 

[William Tasso]

Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster,alt.html
From the safety of the No thank you cafeteria

William Tasso wrote


"Best viewed with..."?

Nice one

However, you know that building a site that is both accessible to all and
makes no usability sacrifices at the altar of 'dezyne' is not the same
thing as choosing one UA over another for a particular task.

Anyhow - best viewed with:
http://williamtasso.com/usenet/bestviewedwithabeer.gif

 

[PHPGB]

<alt.www.webmaster , Charles Sweeney , (e-mail address removed)>
<[email protected]>

"Best viewed with..."?

The below website looks quite different in IE / FF because firefox
doesnt doesnt apply the fade colours effect .

Although most people wont know there actually is a difference as its
only geeks and the like who will look at the same website in different
browsers & regardless of what browser joe punter is using they will be
under the impression thats how its supposed to look .

 

[William Tasso]

Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster,alt.html
From the safety of the cafeteria

...
website looks quite different
in IE / FF because firefox
doesnt doesnt apply the fade colours
effect.
Although most people wont know there
actually is a difference as its
only geeks and the like who will look
at the same website in different
browsers & regardless of what browser
joe punter is using they will be
under the impression thats how its
supposed to look .

quiet right - I just made a (cue: drum-roll, it was my first time) png
transparency thingie that just works in F/F + Opera. IE users see a plain
white background - I see no reason to guild that particular lilly.