E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 21 (In chronological order)

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 10:00AM
Subject: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
No previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Someone else is bound to mention it if I don't: there's no
> > such thing as an 'alt tag' :) There's an alt *attribute* of
> > the img tag; no more, no less.
>
> You beat me to it!
> Element: i.e. <img />
> Attribute: i.e. alt=""
> Tag: The element with its attributes

I think that eventually someone needs to recognize that while semantic
accuracy is important, actually adding alt text is more important than
jumping on someone's ass for using slang. (And that's what "alt tag"
is -- web developer slang. And it's harmless.)

If a web developer is going to dilligently add alt text [*] to her
creations, I don't give a damn what slang term she wants to use.

--Kynn

[*] I prefer the term "alt text" to "alt attribute", as there are
actually many ways to add text alternatives in HTML, not just with a
single attribute.

From: Karl Groves
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 10:30AM
Subject: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

> On 2/16/06, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > Someone else is bound to mention it if I don't: there's no such
> > > thing as an 'alt tag' :) There's an alt *attribute* of
> the img tag;
> > > no more, no less.
> >
> > You beat me to it!
> > Element: i.e. <img />
> > Attribute: i.e. alt=""
> > Tag: The element with its attributes
>
> I think that eventually someone needs to recognize that while
> semantic accuracy is important, actually adding alt text is
> more important than jumping on someone's ass for using slang.

Nobody was jumping on anyone else's ass. Although it was not exactly what
the OP was looking for, the clarification of the nomenclature was, at least
in my case, intended to *help* the OP.

I think helping people is more important than "jumping on someone's ass" for
trying to provide said help.

Karl L. Groves

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 10:45AM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Nobody was jumping on anyone else's ass. Although it was not exactly what
> the OP was looking for, the clarification of the nomenclature was, at least
> in my case, intended to *help* the OP.
>
> I think helping people is more important than "jumping on someone's ass" for
> trying to provide said help.

I'm missing the exchange where the original poster asked for help in
figuring out what to call the alt text in behind-the-scenes technology
discussions on a mailing list, as opposed to figuring out what to call
the HTML and Flash versions.

Instead, I saw at least two posts which were devoted to the extremely
anal retentive sport of noting "IT'S NOT ALT TAG!" as if that really
matters, given that the designer in question has specifically stated
that he would be providing alternative text, and what's more, is
making a non-Flash alternative as well.

I think it's safe to assume that the original poster is, indeed,
familiar with the basics of accessibility and doesn't need a lecture
on tags versus attributes right now.

This pedantry is an example of geek-style of interaction which favors
insignificants GOTCHA!s over actual assistance. The point of nailing
someone's usage of slang [*] is to show off your own elite (1337)
knowledge of pedantic hairsplitting. It's pointless and it's part of
the reason that web accessibility activists come off as crass
nitpickers. Even on accessibility mailing lists.

Another example is people who have been convinced that "click here" is
somehow destructive to the web. No, that's slang again, and yes, we
know full well that not all everyone uses a mouse -- but how many
blind, keyboard-using web users have actually sat there and gone "gosh
it says to click here, but I can't click, WHAT DO I DO??"

Get over the slang, and get over the gotcha!s.

--Kynn

[*] Once again, I emphasize that "alt tag" is not a statement claiming
that there is an HTML element called "alt", but rather commonly used
slang in web design. For fun, google "alt tag" versus "alt attribute"
versus "alt text." Were you surprised at which one is more popular?
Note that only one is officially defined in spec; only one exists by
the standard -- and it's the least popular.

From: ben morrison
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 11:00AM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I'm missing the exchange where the original poster asked for help in

..


> Another example is people who have been convinced that "click here" is
> somehow destructive to the web. No, that's slang again, and yes, we
> know full well that not all everyone uses a mouse -- but how many
> blind, keyboard-using web users have actually sat there and gone "gosh
> it says to click here, but I can't click, WHAT DO I DO??"

There is a very good reason for not using "click here" as link text -
make sure that links make sense when read out of context.

So if i was using a screenreader and asked for all the links on a page
what is more helpful:

1. click here
2. click here
3. click here

or

1. Alt attribute
2. img tag
3. alternative text

Ben

From: Karl Groves
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 11:30AM
Subject: RE: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

> For fun, google
> "alt tag" versus "alt attribute"
> versus "alt text." Were you surprised at which one is more popular?
> Note that only one is officially defined in spec; only one
> exists by the standard -- and it's the least popular.


Certainly you don't intend to argue that the public's misuse of terminology
is evidence that it is correct practice!

If you want to continue that game, then go ahead and Google for "Untitled
Document", "New Page 1" and "Your browser doesn't support frames".
Would you like to substantiate we shouldn't correct those people, too?
Afterall, look how popular it is to have page <title>s that are "New Page
1". It must be OK!

Really, it seems like you're just itching for a flame war. I was trying to
help the OP. I'll remember not to do that again.

Karl L. Groves

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:09PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Austin, Darrel < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > If a web developer is going to dilligently add alt text [*]
> > to her creations, I don't give a damn what slang term she
> > wants to use.
>
> You should when that term is misleading and confuses. If people building
> web sites can't be bothered with understanding HTML, then we have bigger
> problems. ;o)

Now you're just insulting the original poster. I don't see anything in
there which indicates that he has no knowledge of the alt attribute
and would attempt to use a non-existent <alt> element instead.

I don't see what's so hard about understanding that "alt tag" is slang
which pre-dates even WCAG 1.0, and which is in fairly common usage in
web design.

There are NO web designers -- especially not on this mailing list --
who sit down and go "oh, gosh, I wanted to add alternative text,
should I use <img alt="".../> or should I use the ALT TAG?" Zero.
None. Period.

Let's stop pretending like there are, and it's something we need to
guard against.

--Kynn

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:09PM
Subject: RE: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

> Now you're just insulting the original poster. I don't see
> anything in there which indicates that he has no knowledge of
> the alt attribute and would attempt to use a non-existent
> <alt> element instead.

I'd rather not go to a mechanic that calls my timing belt the 'timer
thingamabob' and the oil pan as the 'whatchamacalit that holds that
greasy stuff'.

> I don't see what's so hard about understanding that "alt tag"
> is slang which pre-dates even WCAG 1.0, and which is in
> fairly common usage in web design.

It's not slang. It's a complete misunderstanding of a basic concept.
Tags are tags. Tags have attributes. Attributes have values.

Sometimes we web developer call them alt tags because we make a simple
slip up. Sometimes we web developers call them alt tags because we
aren't aware of those differences in the first place.

-Darrel

From: Dagmar Noll
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:09PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

I stumbled across this article just yesterday. It's something I plan to
keep in mind as I communicate via e-mail and thought some folks here
might find it interesting.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/02/16/1140052207324.html

Best,

Dagmar, who likes calling a thing what it is

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:09PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Don Hinshaw < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> It seems to me that to help one ought to also address the original
> question as well as correct a misstatement:
> "Should we call it "HTML version" and "Flash version"?"
> Just my $.02. Seems like most people here are getting in a lather about
> semantics and not helping poor Paul out very much.

Probably makes sense to do it on the main thread under the original
subject line, rather than this one which I specifically spun off so
the topic wouldn't drift.

FWIW, the suggestion already given makes the most sense.

--Kynn

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:09PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

It's amusing to me that your own email message is pretty unclear in
the same way as described here. Your tone is obscured, you're using a
sarcastic sign-off (or apparently one) about "likes calling a thing
what it is", and you're not very clear which folks you think might
find it interesting.

For example, one could construe your sign-off as meaning that you
believe that it's appropriate to castigate people for using "alt text"
or "click here" -- as that's the context of the current discussion.
Or maybe it's that you're labeling a flame war as a flame war. Or
maybe it's just something you like to write.

The article in question recommends the use of smileys and other
emoticons. I prefer simply writing clearly enough that there's no
possible doubt as to how I feel about something.

I think my own opinion here is unmistakable; I don't think there's
anyone who doesn't know how I feel about this. Problems in
communication result from people who are themselves unclear about how
they feel, and try to hide behind passive-aggressive formuations that
appear to be neutral but really aren't. I think people should just
say what they mean, and say it clearly and forcefully.

It works for me, at least.

Anyway, this is topic drift.

--Kynn


On 2/16/06, Dagmar Noll < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I stumbled across this article just yesterday. It's something I plan to
> keep in mind as I communicate via e-mail and thought some folks here
> might find it interesting.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/02/16/1140052207324.html
>
> Best,
>
> Dagmar, who likes calling a thing what it is
>
>
>
>
>

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:09PM
Subject: RE: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

> I think people should just say
> what they mean, and say it clearly and forcefully.

As in, 'not using incorrect slang'? ;o)

-Darrel

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:09PM
Subject: RE: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

> If a web developer is going to dilligently add alt text [*]
> to her creations, I don't give a damn what slang term she
> wants to use.

You should when that term is misleading and confuses. If people building
web sites can't be bothered with understanding HTML, then we have bigger
problems. ;o)

> [*] I prefer the term "alt text" to "alt attribute", as there
> are actually many ways to add text alternatives in HTML, not
> just with a single attribute.

Then you're talking about two different things, which is fine.

> it's part of the reason that web accessibility activists come off as
crass nitpickers.

What you call crass nitpicking is what many call detail focused.

-Darrel

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 12:30PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Austin, Darrel < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Now you're just insulting the original poster. I don't see
> > anything in there which indicates that he has no knowledge of
> > the alt attribute and would attempt to use a non-existent
> > <alt> element instead.

> I'd rather not go to a mechanic that calls my timing belt the 'timer
> thingamabob' and the oil pan as the 'whatchamacalit that holds that
> greasy stuff'.

Right, because this discussion is about whether or not we're going to
use the services of the original poster.

Your analogy is broken, anyway. There are plenty of cases in auto
mechanics where the technical term is not always used and a slang term
is commonly acceptable. There is no common slang term "timer
thingamabob", but neither did the original poster talk about "alt
whatchamacallit."

> > I don't see what's so hard about understanding that "alt tag"
> > is slang which pre-dates even WCAG 1.0, and which is in
> > fairly common usage in web design.
> It's not slang.

Yes, it is.

> It's a complete misunderstanding of a basic concept.

No, it's not, unless you think people who say "alt tag" are going to
use a fictional <alt> element. People who say "alt tag" mean they are
going to tag (attach text to) an image with a tag (label) using the
alt attribute.

Note that there are several definitions of "tag" in English.

> Tags are tags. Tags have attributes. Attributes have values.

Oh, please, if you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right. I
/can/ out-pedant you if I want to.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.2.2

Only elements have attributes. Tags don't have attributes. You are
yourself lacking a fundamental understanding of HTML (and SGML and
XML) if you believe that /tags/ have attributes and not /elements/.

Gosh, wasn't that fun? I just PWN3D J00 with my 1337 HTML-fu.
(apologies to screenreader users: "i just owned you with my elite
HTML skills.")

But it's pointless and stupid, because we both know perfectly well
what you were talking about. And the only reason for me to correct
you is to humiliate you, oh and to make my point.

> Sometimes we web developer call them alt tags because we make a simple
> slip up. Sometimes we web developers call them alt tags because we
> aren't aware of those differences in the first place.

And sometimes it's just slang and it's asinine to assume that anyone
who writes "alt tag" doesn't know the difference between an attribute
and an element.

ESPECIALLY on this mailing list.

--Kynn

From: Dagmar Noll
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 1:10PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> It's amusing to me that your own email message is pretty unclear in
> the same way as described here.

It is amusing to me as well! It's very difficult to hold meaningful
discussions over e-mail, especially with people you don't know well and
can't see or hear speak.

> Your tone is obscured, you're using a
> you're not very clear which folks you think might
> find it interesting.

I'm glad you pointed this out. I can clarify. I don't know the anyone
here well enough to know exactly who might find it interesting, but I
thought the article was applicable and I found it interesting myself, so
I shared.

> For example, one could construe your sign-off as meaning that you
> believe that it's appropriate to castigate people for using "alt text"
> or "click here" -- as that's the context of the current discussion.
> Or maybe it's that you're labeling a flame war as a flame war. Or
> maybe it's just something you like to write.

Again, thanks for pointing this out. I can embellish. I find that it
helps me communicate more meaningfully if I use language as carefully
and accurately as I can. I find it improves discourse tremendously to
avoid the use of slang and fuzzy, disputed terminology whenever
possible. I'm sure that there are other methods of improving
communication that I don't use and haven't even considered, but would
like to!

> The article in question recommends the use of smileys and other
> emoticons. I prefer simply writing clearly enough that there's no
> possible doubt as to how I feel about something.

I do as well. I shared this article with a friend today, noting,
"Regarding emoticons, if I have the urge to slap one at the end of a
sentence, I feel I probably haven't done a good enough job expressing
myself in the text of the e-mail." I think many people find them
efficient, while I personally find them lazy.

> I think my own opinion here is unmistakable; I don't think there's
> anyone who doesn't know how I feel about this. Problems in
> communication result from people who are themselves unclear about how
> they feel, and try to hide behind passive-aggressive formuations that
> appear to be neutral but really aren't. I think people should just
> say what they mean, and say it clearly and forcefully.

I felt that the text you quoted reflected individuals who were very
clear about how they felt-- everyone is better off if we strive for
semantic accuracy. And I do agree with that, though I'm not sure what
the best method(s) are for doing the actual striving as a group. It is
my impression that the method that inspired your reaction-- unsolicited
lesson-- is not one that you approve of.

I do feel that this is a topic that is worth exploring, since written
communication is the vehicle for our work here.

And it's interesting.

Dagmar

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 1:20PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

> Are you agreeing with me here, or are you trying to call me
> supercilious for defending the populist "alt tag" as acceptable slang?

Inbred slang, which keeps up the myth that accessibility a technical
issue. I actually found that when I deal with content editors or
totally internet development unaware people

"You'll have to provide alternative text for images, videos and
speeches in audio format"

helps a lot more than a cryptic "alt tag" (is that in the back of my
shirt?) or "alt text". Alt has no meaning, except in German, where it
means old.

HTH
Chris

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Tim Beadle
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 1:30PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 16/02/06, Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> You may say I was the one spoiling for a fight, sure, but I didn't
> post merely to "correct" someone's use of slang. I posted about what
> I see as a real problem in the acceptance of accessibility: A
> closeminded, literalist insistence that anyone using "politically
> incorrect" [*] terminology be publicly chastised.

And the problem *I* see in the acceptance of accessibility is the
supercilious attitude of some members of the community, but - hey! -
each to their own ...

Tim

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 1:50PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Austin, Darrel < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > I think people should just say
> > what they mean, and say it clearly and forcefully.

> As in, 'not using incorrect slang'? ;o)

No, slang doesn't bother me as long as everyone knows what's being
talked about, which is exactly the case here.

In another thread, someone talked about "ADA Section 508." I asked
for a clarification because there's no such thing as "ADA Section 508"
-- it's ambiguous, and it could refer to a number of things. In the
case of someone saying that they're going to put "alt tags" on images,
there is no ambiguity and no uncertainty.

And the only way you can create uncertainty is to pretend that the
original poster has no knowledge of the alt attribute, which is
frankly an insulting and absurdist leap to make when the only benefit
is then getting to chastise him publicly for his ignorance.

--Kynn

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 2:10PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Tim Beadle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> And the problem *I* see in the acceptance of accessibility is the
> supercilious attitude of some members of the community, but - hey! -
> each to their own ...

And that's exactly what I was talking about -- the arrogant,
down-your-nose attitude that leads someone to stand up and cry, "no,
it's ALT ATTRIBUTE not ALT TAG you ignoramus!"

Are you agreeing with me here, or are you trying to call me
supercilious for defending the populist "alt tag" as acceptable slang?
I think you're trying for the latter, failing, and succeding at the
former.

--Kynn

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 2:20PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Tim Beadle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> But you normally jump on anyone who doesn't do things in The Absolute
> Correct Way*, Kynn, so why stop at what we call alt attributes/text?
> Regards,
> Tim

I do what? You're making stuff up now, Tim, because you've decided you
lost this argument and are resorting to ad hominem attacks aimed at me
personally rather than at my argument.

> http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread.php?thread=2707&;id=8040#8040

The two disagreements aren't even remotely alike, save that apparently
you disagree with me. Do you need me to go through the logic of each
argument, slowly and carefully? Or are you merely saying "oh, well,
you had an opinion once, so you're wrong?" regardless of what the
issues involved are?

I mean, I'll gladly rehash that archived argument for you and explain
how it's nothing like using "alt tag" in a discussion among other web
developers, but I think it's obvious that you're grasping at straws
here.

Oh, and you're pissing me off, too, by making it personal instead of
about alt text.

--Kynn

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 2:40PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | Next message →

On 2/16/06, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > For fun, google
> > "alt tag" versus "alt attribute"
> > versus "alt text." Were you surprised at which one is more popular?
> > Note that only one is officially defined in spec; only one
> > exists by the standard -- and it's the least popular.

> Certainly you don't intend to argue that the public's misuse of terminology
> is evidence that it is correct practice!

I'm using it to argue that slang usage on a mailing list is unimportant.

Do you really think that the original poster was going to sit there,
editing program open, and type in <alt>Home Page</alt>?

No, you know damn well that he was going to do:
<img src="homebutton.gif" alt="Home Page"/>

Yet two -- two! -- people replied commenting on the use of "alt tag".
This is pedantly and unhelpful, especially when someone has clearly
indicated he is _going to the do the right thing_.

It's the most pettyminded form of accessibility that you're promoting
here. If people want to call it "alt tags" but still remember to
properly tag their images with alternative text, I am thrilled.

You may say I was the one spoiling for a fight, sure, but I didn't
post merely to "correct" someone's use of slang. I posted about what
I see as a real problem in the acceptance of accessibility: A
closeminded, literalist insistence that anyone using "politically
incorrect" [*] terminology be publicly chastised.

--Kynn

[*] As someone who despises the anti-PC movement (i.e. "to show how
NON-politically correct I am, I'm going to bash on women, minorities,
gays, PWDs!"), I don't use this term lightly. I think there is a lot
of emphasis in the web accessibility community on "gotcha!s" and
nitpicking, and that turns people off who are looking for help. You
don't have to lecture someone about their use of slang every time they
ask for help and don't use the same words you'd use.

From: Tim Beadle
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 3:10PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tag [sic] Pedantry
← Previous message | No next message

On 16/02/06, Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I think that eventually someone needs to recognize that while semantic
> accuracy is important, actually adding alt text is more important than
> jumping on someone's ass for using slang. (And that's what "alt tag"
> is -- web developer slang. And it's harmless.)

I didn't "jump on anyone's ass". Did you not notice the smiley? I
tried to be informative (if pedantic) in as light-hearted a way as
possible.

> If a web developer is going to dilligently add alt text [*] to her
> creations, I don't give a damn what slang term she wants to use.

But you normally jump on anyone who doesn't do things in The Absolute
Correct Way*, Kynn, so why stop at what we call alt attributes/text?

Regards,

Tim

http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread.php?thread=2707&;id=8040#8040