E-mail List Archives
Thread: Annotated images
Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)
From: Chris Price
Date: Fri, Feb 09 2007 5:50AM
Subject: Annotated images
No previous message | Next message →
In the pages of a new website I'm placing images, each of which has a
brief description below it plus the photographer's name.
If I leave the 'alt' attribute empty, the accompanying description will
mean nothing if the image isn't displayed. However, if the image is
described (in the 'alt') it just adds to the clutter for those who don't
see the image.
The images provide a visual handle on the text but aren't necessary to
understand the text.
Any thoughts?
Kind Regards
--
Chris Price
Choctaw
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.choctaw.co.uk
Tel. 01524 825 245
Mob. 0777 451 4488
Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder
while Excellence is in the Hand of the Professional
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-+- Sent on behalf of Choctaw Media Ltd -+-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Choctaw Media Limited is a company
registered in England and Wales
with company number 04627649
Registered Office:
Lonsdale Partners,
Priory Close,
St Mary's Gate,
Lancaster LA1 1XB
United Kingdom
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Fri, Feb 09 2007 6:50AM
Subject: Re: Annotated images
← Previous message | Next message →
> Chris Price
> In the pages of a new website I'm placing images, each of which has a
> brief description below it plus the photographer's name.
>
> If I leave the 'alt' attribute empty, the accompanying
> description will
> mean nothing if the image isn't displayed. However, if the image is
> described (in the 'alt') it just adds to the clutter for
> those who don't
> see the image.
>
> The images provide a visual handle on the text but aren't
> necessary to
> understand the text.
>
> Any thoughts?
I'd say leave out the alt (or rather, go for a null alt, alt=""), as the caption serves as alternative for the image already - though I think JF may disagree on this ;)
At a stretch, if you're concerned about situations in which images are not displayed, you could put an alt="Photograph" or similar, but I wouldn't get more descriptive than that.
P
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Feb 09 2007 7:40AM
Subject: Re: Annotated images
← Previous message | No next message
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Chris Price wrote:
> In the pages of a new website I'm placing images, each of which has a
> brief description below it plus the photographer's name.
>
> If I leave the 'alt' attribute empty, the accompanying description will
> mean nothing if the image isn't displayed. However, if the image is
> described (in the 'alt') it just adds to the clutter for those who don't
> see the image.
You have described a very common problem - in a compact manner.
Unfortunately, there is no compact answer. As a rule, it is best to
include some indication of the presence of an image to those who do not
see the image so that the caption (description) does not cause too much
confusion. Something like alt="photo 42" might be suitable.
> The images provide a visual handle on the text but aren't necessary to
> understand the text.
For this problem, the role of the images does not really matter much,
except that for images with essential content, we should probably try to
make the image or the caption (or part thereof) a link to a textual
description of the content, if possible. (It's usually not possible or
feasible, but the issue should still be considered.)
For a decorative image, or for an illustration that should best be skipped
in no-images mode, you might consider making the caption part of the
image, using your favorite image processing program. Then you would use
alt="". In addition to extra work, there's the drawback that the text
would not then be resizable or refontable by the user.
For some related notes, see "Captions and accessibility",
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/captions.html#acc
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/