- From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:02:22 -0700
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
scripsit Jim Ley: > "Glenn Kusardi" <gkmail@stylix.de> wrote in message > news:3312953976.20020820134540@stylix.de... > > See above... There are two attributes available: "title" which > > _should_ be displayed as tool tip and should provide a _additional_ > > description to a picture and "alt" which _should_ only displayed if > > the image itself can't be shown and should provide a "image-replacing" > > description. > > No, displaying more than one representation at the same time (the ALT, > and the image) can be very helpful to some users (it's something I find > extremely useful for images I don't understand, and for this reason on > mouseover my browser, displays TITLE and ALT, and is one of the reasons > why Mozilla is basically inaccessible to me.) So whilst yes in general > what you say is a good suggestion for default rendering - there's nothing > wrong with showing ALT when there is not a TITLE attribute. Should in > your description is excessive, I don't like disobeying _should_s but There's nothing wrong with a UA providing an option for belt-and-braces display -- sort of like GUI apps giving the option of displaying text and icons on the icon bar -- but it should not be the default. I agree with OP that MSIE's and NS4's use of alt text that way is often distracting; on a graphically-intensive page I've occasionally found myself scooting the mouse around trying to find a `safe' place to rest it while I read the content. Mozilla oughtn't be inaccessible to Jim, however. IIRC (I mostly use Galeon now -- the best general-purpose GUI browser) you can get all of `alt', `title', and `longdesc' content by checking out the image properties. On Windows or X, right-click on the image and select Properties. If it's also a link, you might need to go to the second tab. If you have difficulties, file a bug: this isn't Microsoft, it's Open Source, so you _do_ have some say. The use everyone is describing for `title' on <img> is precisely what `longdesc' is for. The difference is that `title' is an attribute, which greatly limits what can go in it. `longdesc' points to a URI and can contain the full panoply of markup. For legacy support, I always use the form: <img src="foo.png" alt="[photo of a foo-bird]" longdesc="foo.longdesc.html" /><a href="foo.longdesc.html" class="dlink">d</a> where CSS makes the `d' invisible to the sighted GUI user by setting its colour to the background colour. If you've ever tried to make text equivalent to a flowchart, you'd realize how inadequate `title' is to the task. I happen to be generally ill-disposed to the title attribute, perhaps because of its early use to `hide' the destination URI of links from display on Netscape's status bar. I'd like to know that this document is on www.youngasianvirgins.com _before_ I follow it. Therefore, I never use the title attrib so as to ``avoid even the appearance of impropriety.'' Just my two drachmae . . . -- Thanasis Kinias Doctoral Student, Department of History Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A. Ash nazg durbatulūk, ash nazg gimbatul, Ash nazg thrakatulūk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 13:02:29 UTC