 | |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: required attribute "ALT" not specified . -
06-01-2007
, 05:01 AM
|
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? |
correct but may need latitude.
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp... (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> 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. |
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
#13
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
On Jun 1, 8:47 am, cwdjrxyz <spamtr... (AT) cwdjr (DOT) info> wrote: |
you are commenting on. In this case, that message contained nothing
relevant, so perhaps you should have sent a followup to some other message.
Quote:
|
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). |
should) contain different texts in image format or otherwise different
symbols.
Quote:
| www.pleaselookitup.com |
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_.
Quote:
|
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? |
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/
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp... (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> 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 |
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
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
"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
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
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
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
If the button says "HOME", use alt="HOME" on it. |
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/
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
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
Quote:
|
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? |
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
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article 1180687766.468491.79... (AT) k79g2000hse (DOT) googlegroups.com>, Lsimmons5 <i... (AT) lookit-up (DOT) com> 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. |
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.
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jun 1, 11:33 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: In article 1180687766.468491.79... (AT) k79g2000hse (DOT) googlegroups.com>, Lsimmons5 <i... (AT) lookit-up (DOT) com> 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. |
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
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.