The ALT attribute examined Dec17 '04

# (1 of 8): Anne » annevankesteren.nl

1 day, 6 hours after the fact. (Sat 18 Dec 2004, 2:51 PM CST)

When you have an image, that has (to make it simple) the word "Contact" written on it the ALT attribute value should read "Contact". However, some people like to make it "Information on how to contact us". Now that is not alternate content, that is additional information and should be put inside a TITLE attribute.

# (2 of 8): Matthom

1 day, 9 hours after the fact. (Sat 18 Dec 2004, 5:17 PM CST)

Thanks, Anne. That helps a bit.

Previous comment Return to entry

# (3 of 8): Lachlan Hunt » lachy.id.au

1 day, 19 hours after the fact. (Sun 19 Dec 2004, 3:12 AM CST)

Hixie explains it best with his and alt text and tooltips.

Previous comment Return to entry

# (4 of 8): Lachlan Hunt » lachy.id.au

1 day, 19 hours after the fact. (Sun 19 Dec 2004, 3:15 AM CST)

Oops, I screwed the markup in that comment, sorry, you'll need to fix it. It should say:

Hixie explains it best with his mini alt text FAQ and alt text and tooltips.

Previous comment Return to entry

# (5 of 8): Matthom

1 day, 23 hours after the fact. (Sun 19 Dec 2004, 7:55 AM CST)

Thanks for the links, Lachlan.

Previous comment Return to entry

# (6 of 8): Tommy Olsson » autisticcuckoo.net

2 days, 16 hours after the fact. (Mon 20 Dec 2004, 1:05 AM CST)

There's an easy way to check whether or not you have used good ALT attributes on your images: view the page in Lynx. You can also use Opera, which makes it very easy to toggle images on and off, but I think the effect is even more apparent in Lynx.

It may be somewhat surprising to see that many images will be better off with alt="", i.e. an empty ALT attribute. If the image doesn't convey any vital information, there's no need to bother text browser users or visually impaired users with the fact that there is an image that they can't see.

Previous comment Return to entry

# (7 of 8): Matthom

3 days, 13 hours after the fact. (Mon 20 Dec 2004, 10:03 PM CST)

Tommy, thanks for your input.

I read Ian Hickson's FAQ regarding alt text (thanks to Lachlan above), and I have a better understanding.

However, what constitutes as "vital information?"

Just curious. This is where the fine line is drawn for me - from a vague understanding to a firm understanding. I am getting there, though.

Previous comment Return to entry

# (8 of 8): Tommy Olsson

3 days, 17 hours after the fact. (Tue 21 Dec 2004, 1:19 AM CST)

My way of doing it goes something like this:

I'll mark up the page and enter ALT texts that seem reasonable. Then I'll check the page in Lynx to see how it turns out when you're not "distracted" by the images. More often than not I realise that those ALT texts aren't very good at all. They tend to be descriptions of the image, rather than a textual equivalent.

In some cases I rewrite the ALT text so that it works better, in other cases it dawns on me that it's better to use an empty ALT.

For people who use graphic menu buttons and such, the ALT text should just say the word(s) in the button. Diagrams will need a brief summary as an ALT text, and then a comprehensive description via LONGDESC. A photograph is iffy. If it's just a picture of the author with his wife and their dog, posing in front of their sailboat, it should probably have ALT="". People who can't see the image probably aren't interested in knowing what they are missing.

If the purpose of the picture is to illustrate something about the main point of the page, it's different. Say I'm including a picture of myself on my "About" page. The point is to give people an option to view my ugly mug and put a face to the name. In that case, I'd use ALT="Tommy" and a LONGDESC pointing to a description of my grey hair and scraggly beard. :)

Sorry for getting long-winded, but the point I'm trying to make is that you need to test your ALT texts by seeing the page with the text equivalents instead of the images. Only then can you get a fair idea of how well they work.

Previous comment Return to entry