required attribute "ALT" not specified .

L

Lsimmons5

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
 
D

David Dorward

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
 
C

cwdjrxyz

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.
 
D

Dan

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.
 
C

cwdjrxyz

Put in an ALT attribute, obviously.



<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.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

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.
 
C

cwdjrxyz

Scripsit cwdjrxyz:


So why don't you give one?


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.


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.
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.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

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.
 
D

David Dorward

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").
 
L

Lsimmons5

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.


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.



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.



- 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?
 
N

Neredbojias

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.
 
D

dorayme

cwdjrxyz said:
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.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit Lsimmons5:
On Jun 1, 8:47 am, cwdjrxyz <[email protected]> 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.

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.
 
B

Bergamot

cwdjrxyz said:
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.
 
D

Dan

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.
 
D

Dan

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.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

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.
 
D

dorayme

Lsimmons5 said:
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.
 
C

cwdjrxyz

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


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.
 
D

dorayme

cwdjrxyz said:
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.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top