- From: Claus André Färber <w3-html-list@faerber.muc.de>
- Date: 25 Jan 1998 11:35:00 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Green J M K <jmkgre@essex.ac.uk> schrieb: > For unimportant pictures, why not ALT="[Pic]" or even ALT="" (I'm not > sure that nothingness will validate)? "" is often the best choice. The text in the ALT attribute should replace the image on non-graphics browsers or when graphics are switched off, so do not write a description of the image but the text that shall be shown to users instead. I usually choose one of these: For unimportant pictures, ALT="" is the only reasonable choice. (But then, if it's that unimportant, why use it at all?) For small icons or symbols, I use characters to imitate the appearance of the image, e.g. <img src="mylogo.gif" alt="MyLoGo"> or <img src="bullet.gif" alt="*">. For important, bigger pictures, I make them downloadable: <a href="photo.jpg"><img alt="[Photo of XXX, 8kB]" src="photo.jpg" border=0></a> Or as a simple rule of the thumb: Load your page in Lynx and think about it. > Also, for separator bars, why not use <HR> and maybe include classes for > CSS? Much faster. I never use non-<HR> separators, simply because they don't behave well for browsers on different screen sizes. <UL> is better than using <img src="bullet.gif"> too, as long as you don't need different, non-ascending symbols. > BTW, "+" won't take up much room on the screen, so unless you're using a > dodgy small screen-mode, not much will be over-written. Right the point was that "Bullet" is too long (6 chars) and another point is that it looks ugly: Bullet This is the first item. Bullet Item 2 goes here. Bullet 3rd item is in this line. -- Claus André Färber <http://www.muc.de/~cfaerber/> Fax: +49_8061_3361 PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E 25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC
Received on Sunday, 25 January 1998 06:51:26 UTC