Re: [WSG] Web site images question
David Dixon wrote: Relevant to the content? From your own list of resources the alt attribute should be a textual alternative for the meaning of the image. It has no more relevance to the content than the image itself, and as the image's purpose is to show the user that the wheelchair is a symbol for accessibility (with further advisory explanation from the title element), then I believe the above example is perfectly valid. It would be true if this was a page explaining symbols. As it stands, though, the purpose of those images is purely an aesthetic enhancement to accompany the text. They serve no purpose. But whatever. It's obvious that until you ascribe meaning to those images, we won't agree on this. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web site images question
David Dixon wrote: img src=/images/accessibility.jpg width=100 height=89 alt=The imagery of a person on a wheelchair is generally considered a symbol for accessibility title=An image of a wheelchair: the symbol for accessibility How is that alt text *relevant* to the content at all? Relevant to the content? From your own list of resources the alt attribute should be a textual alternative for the meaning of the image. It has no more relevance to the content than the image itself, and as the image's purpose is to show the user that the wheelchair is a symbol for accessibility (with further advisory explanation from the title element), then I believe the above example is perfectly valid. But isn't the alt text attribute of the above example too long? 91 characters inculding spaces? I always take care not have more that 60 characters including spaces, and in the worse case no more than 70. Ive even run tests against JAWS and the nice FF extension Fangs to ascertain the behaviour of the screen reader for this particular example, and as neither gives any indication of the advisory title text, then I believe the alt attribute should be giving the same message as the full image (ie the image plus the advisory information). Of course this is personal preference, but as Ive stated earlier, ensuring a page is accessible should be trying to make the page as usable and understandable for a less-abled person as for an abled person. I was just wondering, if novice Internet users would really understand the meaning of the graphics, and I thought it would be necessary using at least the alt tag. Or? img src=mycomputer alt=An image of a computer title=Shows the disk drives and hardware connected to this computer My Computer img src= alt=The image of a folder and magnifying glass is the symbol for Windows Explorer title=Displays the files and folders on your computer. Windows Explorer img src=word alt=The Microsoft Word icon is a blue W inside a square title=Create and edit text and graphics in letters, reports, Web pages, or e-mail messages by using Microsoft Office Word. Microsoft Word I dont find these examples relevant to the context of my example. For my example, the image had a context for which is was designed... the content regarding accessibility. These examples of desktop icons, have no such context. They are their own context, in addition, their usage is vastly different, in a web type example, these would be links, with the image itself being a graphical representation of the text beside it, much like my earlier example of using the accessibility logo as a background to a header. As with that previous example, I would mark up the image differently than the image in this example. Also, as for Patrick's nth degree explanation, I dont see the point in explaining every single aspect of the image itself to verbatim. Enough to explain the purpose of the image itself is quite sufficient. Also, my alt text does not describe the image itself (ie i dont say this is a symbol of a yellow person in a yellow wheelchair), but saying what the image describes a person in a wheelchair is a symbol for accessibility gives the same meaning as the image itself. As for my cigarette example, then yes, I think giving a hint as to colour of the symbol is valid, as this symbol is universal (at least in the UK). The red circle itself symbolises something which is not permitted. If you were to explain what a no smoking symbol looked like without saying the circle was red (even if they have no concept of red looks like) would give a lesser clue as to its purpose as providing its colour. In fact, just saying a red circle, would probably give the idea of something that is not permitted, even before saying it has a picture of a cigarette in it. Good points David. Thanks, David. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- John S. Britsios Web Architect Marketing Consultant Webnauts Net (Main Office) Koblenzer Str. 37A D-33613 Bielefeld Webnauts Net (U.S. Office) 5 Ivanhoe Drive Urbana IL 61802 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web address: http://www.webnauts.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web site images question
David Dixon wrote: As for my cigarette example, then yes, I think giving a hint as to colour of the symbol is valid, as this symbol is universal (at least in the UK). The red circle itself symbolises something which is not permitted. If you were to explain what a no smoking symbol looked like without saying the circle was red (even if they have no concept of red looks like) would give a lesser clue as to its purpose as providing its colour. In fact, just saying a red circle, would probably give the idea of something that is not permitted, even before saying it has a picture of a cigarette in it. But again, this is only valid if the page in question with the no smoking sign is explicitly explaining the appearance and meaning of symbols. Otherwise, the purpose of that image is to signal No smoking, which would then be a perfectly appropriate ALT text conveying the meaning of the image. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web site images question
David Dixon wrote: [...] It would be useful to get a few more opinions on what others believe the purpose is... The purpose of 'text' in the alt-attribute it to expand/complete the meaning - in context, (as close to) the same as the visible image itself does. Describing the image is not what the alt-attribute is there for. An image may tell a story, and/or strengthen (parts of) the surrounding content. The alt-text should (ideally speaking) do the same - or be left out. Whatever one puts in that alt-attribute should make optimal sense - in context. If it doesn't, then an alt= is to be preferred in nearly all cases. --- The 'graphical' version should not influence or cross-contaminate the 'text-only' version of a page at the User end. Few 'text-only' Users can, or do, compare. The 'text-only' version should carry _all_ that is relevant - and not much else, while the 'graphical' may provide space for all the relevant, less-relevant and/or non-relevant visual cues one may want to put in. --- Images can, and often do, add value - when visible, as visual cues along with text works well - visually. Text - followed by an image - followed by more text, may work well in most cases - for those of us who can see it all and scan in all directions. --- Providing loss-less alternatives inside alt-attributes is impossible for most images. Providing short alternatives in context is somewhat easier, but most often not necessary, or useful. Very often the only logical alt-text for an image is a repetition, or rewrite, of what's already in the text. Such a logical but repetitive alt-text doesn't add anything of value. Repetitive, rewritten or 'out of context' text adds noise, so it makes little or no sense to have any alt-text. Text - followed by a rewrite of the same or 'an out of context' text (disguised as an accessibility-improving alt-attribute) - followed by more (of the same) text, rarely ever make much sense. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web site images question
OK everybody. Now back to reality. He is a real world testing scenario: I asked a novice/intermediate(?) Internet user without any known disabilities to test a demo page I have created for that purpose (with graphics rendered as background in CSS), and therefore no alt text attributes available, and her first question was: What do those symbols mean? . And she continued: John, and why when I go over the graphics, those little yellow boxes don't appear? I saw that often on other pages, were they explain what the graphics are about. To this point, I wanted to add here, that not only experienced users are welcome to request any of our services. While to be specific, our tester was a paralegal secretary, and she have requested our services a while ago, for building a web site for the lawyers company she is working with. So I think I cannot consider such employees for example, non-targeted group, or? So, far I still think it would be appropriate to modify the alt attributes as in previous mails suggested, but for a long description (not longdesc though), I am still not sure about that. What do you think now? Thanks again for your kind feedbacks. Best, John David Dixon wrote: It would be true if this was a page explaining symbols. As it stands, though, the purpose of those images is purely an aesthetic enhancement to accompany the text. They serve no purpose. But whatever. It's obvious that until you ascribe meaning to those images, we won't agree on this. You're probably right, unless we agree as the purpose of the image (aesthetic or symbolic) then we'll probably just end up arguing our cases to verbatim. It would be useful to get a few more opinions on what others believe the purpose is, although in the end, I think John, its down to you to decide which camp these images sit in. Not an easy decision based on the too and fro that been going on here though :) Cheers, David. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- John S. Britsios Web Architect Marketing Consultant Webnauts Net (Main Office) Koblenzer Str. 37A D-33613 Bielefeld Webnauts Net (U.S. Office) 5 Ivanhoe Drive Urbana IL 61802 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web address: http://www.webnauts.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web site images question
John S. Britsios wrote: I asked a novice/intermediate(?) Internet user without any known disabilities to test a demo page I have created for that purpose (with graphics rendered as background in CSS), and therefore no alt text attributes available, and her first question was: What do those symbols mean? . And she continued: John, and why when I go over the graphics, those little yellow boxes don't appear? I saw that often on other pages, were they explain what the graphics are about. John, IMO, these questions show that *title* would be more appropriate than alt --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web site images question
Sorry Georg, I appreciate the time you took in posting your response, but I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking what was the opinion on the appropriateness of alt/title text in a general sense, but what the opinion was on the purpose of the image that was in question... is it purely aesthetic or does it convey its own meaning (i.e. is it symbolic of its own message). It's purely elementary of course, but the different interpretations are a reason why the opinion is split. Cheers, David. Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: David Dixon wrote: [...] It would be useful to get a few more opinions on what others believe the purpose is... The purpose of 'text' in the alt-attribute it to expand/complete the meaning - in context, (as close to) the same as the visible image itself does. Describing the image is not what the alt-attribute is there for. An image may tell a story, and/or strengthen (parts of) the surrounding content. The alt-text should (ideally speaking) do the same - or be left out. Whatever one puts in that alt-attribute should make optimal sense - in context. If it doesn't, then an alt= is to be preferred in nearly all cases. --- The 'graphical' version should not influence or cross-contaminate the 'text-only' version of a page at the User end. Few 'text-only' Users can, or do, compare. The 'text-only' version should carry _all_ that is relevant - and not much else, while the 'graphical' may provide space for all the relevant, less-relevant and/or non-relevant visual cues one may want to put in. --- Images can, and often do, add value - when visible, as visual cues along with text works well - visually. Text - followed by an image - followed by more text, may work well in most cases - for those of us who can see it all and scan in all directions. --- Providing loss-less alternatives inside alt-attributes is impossible for most images. Providing short alternatives in context is somewhat easier, but most often not necessary, or useful. Very often the only logical alt-text for an image is a repetition, or rewrite, of what's already in the text. Such a logical but repetitive alt-text doesn't add anything of value. Repetitive, rewritten or 'out of context' text adds noise, so it makes little or no sense to have any alt-text. Text - followed by a rewrite of the same or 'an out of context' text (disguised as an accessibility-improving alt-attribute) - followed by more (of the same) text, rarely ever make much sense. Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] A research on the coding practices in web
Hi, I have conducted a research on roughly a million web pages, looking for answers to questions like: * How many pages make use of CSS / JavaScript / ... ? * How are the main web-technologies used? (which html elements, which CSS properties, ...) * How correct is the code that is used? (Valid HTML? Valid CSS2? application/xhtml+xml for XHTML?) The whole 120-page document about this research is only available in estonian, but I have put together a shorter version in english, which mostly consentrates on the results (but is still quite long read): http://www.triin.net/2006/06/12/Coding_practices_of_web_pages As Google did it's Web Authoring Statistics at the beginning of the year, I don't have much to say about HTML elements and attributes. And as my JavaScript analyzing program just refused to work, I don't have much to say about JavaScript either. But this means the major part of the research deals with CSS - properties, units, selectors, validation, etc. Hope you like it, (any comments are welcome) Rene Saarsoo ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Web site images question
David Dixon wrote: If you really are still concerned for size of the alt text though, then keep in mind that JAWS appears to have a limit of around 150 characters (although im yet to test this), Joe Clark recommends that alt text be no longer than 1,024 characters and I'm quite sure he'd have actually tested it with JAWS and other screen readers. http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html#p-905 steer clear of longdesc for its lack of support (plus I feel a longdesc would be overkill). You should see what Joe Clark has to say on the matter. http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html#h2-2415 I recommend everyone (at least those participating in this thread) read that entire chapter, as it covers many of the issues being discussed here. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
