W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Clarification needed on ALT/TITLE tooltips

From: Brian Bober <netdemonz@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030624225950.86794.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com>
To: (wrong string) ørn_Ulsberg" <asbjorn.ulsberg@nrk.no>
Cc: www-html@w3.org

Agreed. If the spec is more specific, maybe people will be less reluctant to
use ALT and TITLE correctly. As it stands now, you can argue that IE is just
interpreting the specs differently. A clause saying "ALT is a replacement for
text and shouldn't be shown as a tooltip" would at least give us a better
argument to use when we correctly interpreting the specs. Right now, a lot of
people say, "It doesn't say it can't be used as a tooltip, just that TITLE is"
and ask us to show ALT as a tooltip if no TITLE is available. Mozilla.org
doesn't want to do that because it encourages improper use of ALT, but still we
can't argue that the spec actually explicitly says not to use tooltips for ALT.
With a clause there, and maybe a few examples of ALT vs TITLE, we could at
least say, "Look: its right there in the errata".

--- Asbjørn_Ulsberg <asbjorn.ulsberg@nrk.no> wrote:
> Brian Bober wrote:
> > I would like you to say that ALT shouldn't be displayed as
> > a tooltip but simply as a replacement for a missing image
> > by default by a user-agent, and only title should.
> That's right.
> > I would also like you to provide more extensive examples
> > on proper ALT and TITLE strings. That way, we can get rid
> > of the inconsistancy between user agents, webdesign
> > software, etc.
> I agree that more examples on "best practices" should be
> provided. This goes for all specifications, not only W3C's
> specs.
> > Bug 25537 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25537 -
> > "alt text is not displayed as a tooltip") on bugzilla.mozilla
> > .org is about ALT Tooltips not being shown as tooltips, yet
> > Title tooltips are.
> Well, this isn't a bug. It's a faulty behavior in Internet
> Explorer that ALT texts are displayed as tooltips. Because
> of this faulty behavior, people believe that the ALT text is
> in fact a tooltip, and not an ALTernative Text for the image.
> The TITLE text is rather a tooltip; it can be used to
> describe the image richer than the ALT text, and might be
> displayed as a yellow little tooltip label as in Internet
> Explorer.
> > Since ALT is meant as a replacement for images, and TITLE is
> > meant as a title for the image, Mozilla behaves correctly
> > because it displays TITLE as tooltips, but ALT only as a
> > replacement for an image that didn't load or was blocked.
> Correct.
> > The problem is that older browsers didn't behave properly
> Well, "older" isn't quite right. Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 also
> has this behavior, I'm afraid.
> > and web authors are reluctant to update their site,
> > especially since IE will display ALT as a tooltip if no TITLE
> > is avalailable.
> The solution, if you don't want ALT texts to display as tooltips,
> is to provide an empty TITLE text for your images. Then the TITLE
> text will display instead of the ALT text, and since it's empty,
> it won't display at all.
> > Therefore, Mozilla displays incorrect behavior to authors that
> > don't know any better.
> Then the challenge is to educate these authors so they
> understand better that ALT is an abbreviation for "alternative",
> and how to use the ALT text in a right manner. Also, it's important
> to fix the bug in IE with proper use of the TITLE attribute, to
> control where you want a tooltip to display and not.
> > This is further compounded by sites that incorrectly describe
> > the functionality of ALT and TITLE attributes, along with web
> > authoring software that doesn't support TITLE. 
> This is a deadly sin, and I have no idea how to fix this, other
> than providing good examples in the spec.
> -- 
> Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-          X-No-Archive: No
> "He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away"

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:59:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:04 UTC