Discussion Time

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Accessibility

Message

jaybee -> Discussion Time (6/26/2006 6:47:11)
Thoughts...... Every picture has an alt and title tag. The alt tag describes the picture so if for some reason it goes missing you could identify exactly which one it was and also to describe the picture for the screen readers. IE. Man in pink car looking sheepish The title tage gives a further description IE. Billy Bob in his new Pink Chevrolet at the autumn fair. So far so good, the information is all there for sighted and screen readers but, then to be extra helpful one can put a caption under the picture. Problem is the caption then tends to be the same as the title tag so the screen readers get it twice and so do sighted visitors if they hover over the picture. What do you do? [edit] Ignore the Longdesc for now, that's a whole other ball game

Tailslide -> RE: Discussion Time (6/26/2006 8:31:16)
It's not an easy cut and dried thing unfortunately. If you have an image where there's a caption underneath it describing it then it may be appropriate not to use the title text and to possibly leave the alt attribute blank. You'll be duplicating the information so it won't actually be helpful to anyone just to have either title text or alt text just for the sake of it. I used to add title text to everything - links, images, everything that moved got a title text - but I've done away with most of them as they're often just duplicating information and can in fact be either uneccessary or even confusing rather than helpful. Alt text should be there if the image provides information not visible on the rest of the page - if the image is just structural rather than informational then it should be a null attribute like this alt="" ( never actually left off though). If there's an obvious, attached caption for the image for too then it may be better to leave just the blank alt attribute. If the image does something such as a link then obviously the alt text should reflect that and say what it does - not what it is, if you see what I mean. Basically I've come to realise over the last 6 months that it's pointless to just include title text and alt text when they're not needed - in fact it can be counter-productive. And, unfortunately, each case needs to be considered on it's merits rather than having a "one size fits all" rule. Edit: Ah - I've found the relevant bit from the WC3 - here you go: quote: Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). So in other words - the text equivalent can be in the content of the page rather than necessarily in an alt text - it just depends on how it's structured and if it actually does the trick without the alt text. So it's a case of thinking about it in each case I'm afraid!

Nicole -> RE: Discussion Time (6/26/2006 8:56:30)

Don't know if this is any help Jaybee, perhaps what I've done is even wrong:

	... formation of a cataract is a normal part of aging.</p>
<div class="right">
<img src="../images/cataract-lens.jpg" alt="This diagram shows light entering the cataract lens." width="200px" height="200px" /><br />
<br />
As light passes through the cataract lens, it is diffused or scattered. The result is blurred or defocused vision.
</div><!-- end right div -->
<p>The lens is mostly made of water and protein....

It uses only the alt attrbute really, no title and no caption, but the text before the end of the div acts as a caption and remains aligned with the image.

hth?

Nicole

Mike Cherim -> RE: Discussion Time (6/29/2006 9:34:15)
It really has to be about not filling attributes because they are there, but because they add value to the user's experience. I find it is best to first determine what's in the image and whether it adds any value at all, then to determine the course of action based on this assessment. One of the safest uses of the alt attribute is to not give it a value beyond null (alt=""). Let's face it, most imagess are for sighted users with images enabled. On rare occasions, the photo is the content and thus needs to be supported with the alt attribute or a long description if needed. Often the thing to do is to close your eyes and listen to the site and then use that to determine if there is added value. Or, does it become a redundant thing that simply confuses the user. If you can, try to add what would be in the alt attribute into the content text so it reads and presents naturally and in a more logical order. I wrote a whole article about this (I'm passionate about this subjst) that if followed will keep your use of the alt attribute safe to those who may really need it. I could explain it all here, but it's somewhat lengthy to do that properly, so instead here's a link to the article: http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=81 Regarding title, I prefer to use that to describe the action, if needed that is. Mike

jaybee -> RE: Discussion Time (6/29/2006 10:25:20)
Ooooh thanks Beasty. I've been rethinking this for a while now ever since I was given a copy of Jaws and wasn't overimpressed with what I was hearing. I think the problem is that there hasn't been any clear guidance on it so I for one have erred on the side of caution. Or rather, I've over-erred. Or rather, I sincerely hope some poor so-and-so with a screen reader hasn't hit one of my sites because if they have, by the end of the page they'll be able to recite the picture info word for word. [&:] I'll have a good read as I want to go back and sort that site as well as some less than developer friendly menus I did when I was starting out. Fine for screen readers but every time I go to change them I think WTF did I do here????

Tailslide -> RE: Discussion Time (6/29/2006 10:30:02)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaybee I for one have erred on the side of caution. Or rather, I've over-erred. Exactly what I did. I think it's normal for people getting into accessibility seriously to go overboard completely before reigning it back in to something that's actually useful! It's a bit like most CSS converts get a bad case of divitis in the early stages!

jaybee -> RE: Discussion Time (6/29/2006 10:44:15)
<div>You can NEVER have too many <div>divs </div><div></div></div> [:D]

Page: [1]

0.078125