use of alt & title for images, and image links

Even after comments in another thread by Alan J. Flavell,
I'm not sure I have this straight in my head, so any comments
or corrections are welcome :-)

If I have:
<p>
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
</p>
and I change it to:
<p>
The quick <a href="fox.jpg">brown fox</a> jumped over the lazy dog.
</p>
I don't change the "brown fox" text, although the 'functionality'
or 'meaning' of the text has changed, in that it is now a link.

Although I have no experience with them, I can imagine a screen reader
reading both sentences the same way, depending on how, or if, links
are "highlighted".

If I have:
<p>
<img src="fox.jpg" width="50" height="50"
alt="brown fox" title="brown fox">
</p>
that shows a "thumbnail image" of a fox, and I use it
in combination with some text:
<p>
The quick
<img src="fox.jpg" width="50" height="50"
alt="brown fox" title="brown fox">
jumped over the lazy dog.
</p>
then am I correct in saying that there is no need, in terms of
best practices, to change the alt and/or title text?

If the "thumbnail image" of the fox is also used as a link
to a 'full sized' image of a fox:
<p>
The quick
<a href="foxlarge.jpg">
<img src="fox.jpg" width="50" height="50"
alt="brown fox" title="brown fox"></a>
jumped over the lazy dog.
</p>
should the alt and/or title text change?

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, the Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org dpatton at confluence dot org
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
Vancouver/Whistler - host of the 2010 Winter Olympics

In article <Xns93B196A5CFC67mrzaphoddirectca (AT) 24 (DOT) 71.223.159>,
Dave Patton <dpatton (AT) remove-for-nospam (DOT) confluence.org> wrote:

p
The quick
a href="foxlarge.jpg"
img src="fox.jpg" width="50" height="50"
alt="brown fox" title="brown fox"></a
jumped over the lazy dog.
/p

<p>
The quick
<a href="foxlarge.jpg" title="Larger picture of a brown fox"><img
src="fox.jpg" alt="brown fox"></a>
jumped over the lazy dog
</p>

In article <Xns93B196A5CFC67mrzaphoddirectca (AT) 24 (DOT) 71.223.159>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of Dave Patton <dpatton (AT) remove-for-nospam (DOT) confluence.org> wrote:

p
The quick
img src="fox.jpg" width="50" height="50"
alt="brown fox" title="brown fox"
jumped over the lazy dog.
/p

The title attribute - though harmless - seems superfluous. What does it
tell you that's not clear in the image and the alt?

p
The quick
a href="foxlarge.jpg"
img src="fox.jpg" width="50" height="50"
alt="brown fox" title="brown fox"></a
jumped over the lazy dog.
/p
should the alt and/or title text change?

The title attribute is equally superfluous. But a title attribute to
the <a ...> would now make some sense (it's a title for the resource
you're linking to).

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

In article <MPG.19752a2860c80f18989c05 (AT) news (DOT) CIS.DFN.DE> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
<porjes (AT) spamcop (DOT) net> wrote:

ell, I think your examples are correct, and from the lack of response
I'd say that most other people here do too.

I don't think that conclusion is logical. They could also be
uninterested, or fatigued, or unable to articulate exactly what they
don't like.

I'm not saying anything about the particular issue you responded to;
but I think as a general rule it is logically invalid and dangerous
to equate "few or no people voiced disagreement" with "most people
agree".

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

In article <MPG.197523fd8b0a730f98aefe (AT) news (DOT) odyssey.net>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm> wrote:

I'm not saying anything about the particular issue you responded to;
but I think as a general rule it is logically invalid and dangerous
to equate "few or no people voiced disagreement" with "most people
agree".

Isn't that how politics work? :P

In article <MPG.197523fd8b0a730f98aefe (AT) news (DOT) odyssey.net>,
the_stan_brown (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm says...

In article <MPG.19752a2860c80f18989c05 (AT) news (DOT) CIS.DFN.DE> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
porjes (AT) spamcop (DOT) net> wrote:
ell, I think your examples are correct, and from the lack of response
I'd say that most other people here do too.

....
I'm not saying anything about the particular issue you responded to;
but I think as a general rule it is logically invalid and dangerous
to equate "few or no people voiced disagreement" with "most people
agree".


Sure, but given what a popular subject for argument this particular

issue is I figure that silence is at least silver :-)