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.