Re: Questionable implementation of IMG ALT attribute as tooltips
Bill Bereza (bereza@pobox.com)
Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:46:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:46:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Bereza <bereza@pobox.com>
To: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
cc: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980124130235.0096bd50@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980124143420.11185A-100000@voyager.cris.com>
Subject: Re: Questionable implementation of IMG ALT attribute as tooltips
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Liam Quinn wrote:
> Here, the meaning is redundant. A speech browser, search engine, or Lynx
> would render the above example as
>
> Warning: Warning: This must be
> done by a qualified technician.
>
> Oops. Hopefully people now see why ALT="" would be more appropriate in
> this case. If the warning icon were moved in front of the text
> "Warning:", then ALT="**" or something similar might be useful.
>
Well, if you have an icon which means warning, you have to wonder
whether it's necessary to have the text "Warning:" in the text in
addition to the image. So if you just removed "Warning:" and left
"Warning:" as the ALT text for the image, it would make more sense.
This is a case where an image can actually be used in place of text, and
perfectly shows where ALT is really useful:
<IMG src=triange.gif alt="Warning:"> This must be done by a ...
Bill Bereza bereza@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~bereza/
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.