> I don't see the point of the null alt strings.
Consider e.g. sponsor images. You don't want to "pollute" your SEOed
page with sponsor keywords, nor is it necessary from an accessibility
point of view.
Cheers,
Jens
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files
> The H1 should be used for the most important heading, usually the name
of the page
I second that.
We used to have lots of logos in s too, and after a thorough SEO
discussion we changed that to a .
The now holds the page title.
Cheers,
Jens
The information contained in this e-mail messa
ahhh hahaha
thats brilliant!!
Tom said:
> How about a real 'attributes for dummies' reference??
are you writing a book?
2008/5/28 Tom Livingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Andrew Maben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On May 27, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Freedman
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Andrew Maben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 27, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Freedman wrote:
>
> kate provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:21 AM:
>
> The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called the
> attribute tag.
> Kate
>
>
William,
the select tag has a set width. There is a chance that IE is
restricting the list to that set width and using this set width as
the view port of the option list.
Look it up.
I suspect that is the problem also. I have been looking for a
solution, but not getting anywhere, which i
Hi Bob,
not being on my main work station, I'll give it a try.
the select tag has a set width. There is a chance that IE is restricting
the list to that set width and using this set width as the view port of
the option list.
Look it up.
From experience i also notice that IE (IE6 in particula
Darren West wrote:
There is the argument that you are changing the behaviour of IE,
however wrong it is, it could be what users expect. I believe Jaws
ignores empty attributes so all good there ...
I do not think one should meddle with a browser's behavior in minor
cases like "showing alt-text
Yup, I see it too. In IE, the option attribute inherits the select
attribute.
I tried adding a class and placed to the option, but doesn't work.
tee
On May 28, 2008, at 5:48 AM, Bob Schwartz wrote:
tee,
That seems to have brought FF around, but IE6 is still clipping.
Bob
On May 28, 2008
On 5/28/08, Chris Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For a few years now I've been marking up a clients company logo as a . I
> just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do this compared to
> using a html image tag? I believe a is more semantically correct
> however I'd be interest
On 28 May 2008, at 13:39, Darren West wrote:
Rick,
what email client are you using? how do you get the 'on 28 may darren
wrote ...' and the border-left on the quote?
Cheers
Darren
Drifting OT now, but it's plain old Apple Mail. The border-left, as
you call it, is just Mail's way of indica
tee,
That seems to have brought FF around, but IE6 is still clipping.
Bob
On May 28, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Bob Schwartz wrote:
Any way to get the other browsers (and especially IE6) to display
like, or nearly like (I would be happy if IE6 was at least like
FF), Safari?
add width to opt
Rick,
what email client are you using? how do you get the 'on 28 may darren
wrote ...' and the border-left on the quote?
Cheers
Darren
2008/5/28 Rick Lecoat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 28 May 2008, at 12:53, Darren West wrote:
>
>> There is the argument that you are changing the behaviour of IE,
Rick Lecoat wrote:
>I agree that that's an argument. But the counter-argument, to my mind, is that
>I'm *correcting* the behaviour of IE through markup and css
>(well, ok, not css in this case) to bring it into line with standards
>compliant browsers, which is what we, ad web designers/developer
On May 28, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Bob Schwartz wrote:
Any way to get the other browsers (and especially IE6) to display
like, or nearly like (I would be happy if IE6 was at least like FF),
Safari?
add width to option attribute.
#rht_col option {width: 250px;
padding: 0 3px;
}
tee
On 28 May 2008, at 12:53, Darren West wrote:
There is the argument that you are changing the behaviour of IE,
however wrong it is, it could be what users expect.
I agree that that's an argument. But the counter-argument, to my mind,
is that I'm *correcting* the behaviour of IE through markup
If you go to http://www.bobstestplace.com/aahid/
using Safari on the Mac
and click on either of the drop down form menus in the right column
you will see the option list open below the form menu select in a
window that is wide enough to view the entire name of each option.
This seems to be
There is the argument that you are changing the behaviour of IE,
however wrong it is, it could be what users expect. I believe Jaws
ignores empty attributes so all good there ...
2008/5/28 Darren West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Seems like a good idea, any implications?
>
>
> 2008/5/28 Rick Lecoat <[E
Seems like a good idea, any implications?
2008/5/28 Rick Lecoat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 28 May 2008, at 11:31, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
>
>> Me too. IE/win shows title-text on images when such exists, otherwise it
>> shows the alt-text if such exists.
>
> For this reason I quite often use a null-v
On 28 May 2008, at 11:31, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Me too. IE/win shows title-text on images when such exists,
otherwise it
shows the alt-text if such exists.
For this reason I quite often use a null-value title attribute
alongside filled-in alt text, simply because I don't *want* tooltips
I fumbled with this for a while Chris but decided against it on the grounds
that denotes the most important content on the page; the site ownerthe
logo may think that his or her logo is the most important element on the page,
I doubt any site users would agree.
I know we have to be pragmatic
Chris Pearce wrote:
Hi,
For a few years now I’ve been marking up a clients company logo as a
. I just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do this
compared to using a html image tag? I believe a is more
semantically correct however I’d be interested in seeing what other
people
Designer wrote:
I'm getting confused now - on MY IE6, the title is displayed on
hover, not the alt. I was originally testing with my standalone IE6,
so I checked on my laptop, (with 'real' IE6) and got the same
result!
Me too. IE/win shows title-text on images when such exists, otherwise it
Ted Drake wrote:
Sorry but on hover, IE6 will show "this is a dog" and other browsers will
show "oh no it isn't"
-Original Message-
Just to confuse the issue, as well as clarify it, this example:
WILL show the message 'this is a dog' when hovered in IE, even when the
image
On 28 May 2008, at 09:50, Michael MD wrote:
I don't see the point of the null alt strings.
A validator is a tool to help you ... its not the be all and end all
- you need to interpret the results with a bit of common sense.
It seems rather pointless and silly to just try to fool the validato
Sorry but on hover, IE6 will show "this is a dog" and other browsers will
show "oh no it isn't"
If your tooltips are really that critical, use the YUI tooltip javascript to
get cross-browser compatibility to display the title attribute. You can also
style them. http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/conta
Hi Chris,
Here's a blog post I wrote a while ago with my view:
http://www.digitaloverload.co.uk/blog/2007/11/23/more-semantic-logos/
James.
Chris Pearce wrote:
Hi,
For a few years now I’ve been marking up a clients company logo as a
. I just wanted to get an idea of how many people actual
Jason Ray wrote:
The information in the alt attribute will only display when the image is
not available - [snip]
The information in the title attribute will display when the pointer
hovers over the object or image.
Just to confuse the issue, as well as clarify it, this example:
WILL show
So what's the general consensus on the use of null or empty alt strings as
per the reasons outlined in the article below?
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/accessible_alternatives.html
I don't see the point of the null alt strings.
A validator is a tool to help you ... its not the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what's the general consensus on the use of null or empty alt
strings as per the reasons outlined in the article below?
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/accessible_alternatives.html
The choice between alt-text or no alt-text depends entirely on whether
an a
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Adam Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I personally think that marking up the logo with an h1 tag is a bad idea -
> is the company name really the most important aspect of every page? You
> should reserve the h1 for the most important title on the page.
Exactly.
Maybe we need the correct person from AGIMO on this list. Having said that
the spec is probably based on Word up to 2003, which is the version most
Departments would be using, I don't believe Vista has been released as a SOE
to any Federal Government Department as yet.
Cheers,
Rae
On Wed, May 2
On Wed, 28 May 2008 17:49:21 +1000, Chris Pearce wrote:
> For a few years now I’ve been marking up a clients company logo as a
> . I just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do
> this compared to using a html image tag? I believe a is more
> semantically correct however I’d be int
Hi Chris,
I've always done that too, it's always seemed to make the most sense here too.
I've seen many sites that use image tags instead and do concede the point that
without css, the logo could still be considered as worthy showing.
I wonder if there would be a good middle ground with this.
As i remember alt was short for alternative text, to describe images in
a website.
It is als yuseful for Search ENgine Optimization as its visible for them
to also
relate them to content, titles and other components of the page.
text-only browsers display it. ...
It's text for people w
I personally think that marking up the logo with an h1 tag is a bad idea
- is the company name really the most important aspect of every page?
You should reserve the h1 for the most important title on the page.
Cheers
Adam
Chris Pearce wrote:
Hi,
For a few years now I’ve been marking up a cl
Hi,
For a few years now I've been marking up a clients company logo as a . I
just wanted to get an idea of how many people actually do this compared to
using a html image tag? I believe a is more semantically correct however
I'd be interested in seeing what other people on this list think.
Ch
Rae Buerckner wrote:
The following is from the AGIMO website.
[...]
The preferred format is HTML, followed by Word/RTF, and text.
They should change this from "Word" to "doc" (because Word 2007 also
includes docx and so "Word" is ambiguous).
And obviously they should specify the version of d
So what's the general consensus on the use of null or empty alt strings as
per the reasons outlined in the article below?
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/accessible_alternatives.html
Lisa Kerrigan
Website Editor
www.business.vic.gov.au
Department Innovation, Industry and Regional Devel
As i remember alt was short for alternative text, to describe images in
a website.
It is als yuseful for Search ENgine Optimization as its visible for them
to also
relate them to content, titles and other components of the page.
Michael
kate wrote:
The alt tag which is'nt really the right dis
39 matches
Mail list logo
