«

In article <> ,
BootNic <> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:32:25 +1000
> dorayme <> wrote in:
> <doraymeRidThis->
> [snip]
> >>> ----------------------------------
> >>> "I thought you should know that you didn't invent anything new.
> >>> *Bergamot*"
> >>> Bootnic
> >>>
> >>
> >> Um. Whazzis?
> >
> > Ah this one? Yes. Quite a while back Bergamot said this to Bootnic.
> > It was rather an unnecessary thing to say. Even if true. Recently
> > Bootnic remembered it and elevated the memory to a sig space in *one*
> > of his posts.
> >
> If only my memory was intact.
>
Don't worry, legends are made from false memories (but on this one I am
sure your memory is accurate enough)

--
dorayme

Bergamot wrote:
> John Hosking wrote:
>> Why not use title to to inform where user goes if he
>> clicks, and alt to describe the image?
>
> Except in certain cases, alt != description

Yes, agreed; I used the word "describe" rather too loosely. I indeed
meant that alt is to say what the image is.

[Exacting explication of what alt text should be snipped]


--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
Possessive "its" has no apostrophe. Even on the Internet.

Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed John Hosking
> writing in news:48b01b18$:
>
>>>> Adrienne Boswell <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The alt attribute should be a short description of the image,
>>>>> unless the image is for decorative purposes only, eg:
>>>>> <img src="catpaint.jpg" height="320" width="240" alt="Cat using paw
>>>>> to paint on refrigerator door">
>>>> If it is a link to somewhere, some people use alt to inform where
>>>> user goes if he clicks.
>>>>

>>> Yes, they do, and that's a good idea, especially if it's a menu, and
>>> the menu is composed of images.
>>>
>> Now wait a minute. Why not use title to to inform where user goes if
>> he clicks, and alt to describe the image?
>>
>> When images are present, the user can hover over the link/image, see
>> the title text, and decide whether to click. The user doesn't need the
>> alt text to describe the image, because the image itself is visible.
>>
>> When images are not displayed (or one is missing), the alt text is
>> displayed instead. The user can hover over the link/alt text, see the
>> title text, and decide whether to click.
>>
>
> Your point is well taken, however, I have seen many sites that use
> images for menu items, and for one reason or another, the images are
> missing (or I have turned off image because the site is taking waaay too
> long to load - and I need to be there). Being able to see the alt text
> on a menu item is helpful.

Indeed. (I think being able to navigate between pages could just make
this Internet thing really take off. )

>
> Or take this scenario - the text on the images (the text is part of the
> image), is hard to read. In that case, an alt attribute is handy (I
> turn images off).
>
> I agree that the title attribute should be included, but the alt
> attribute will render without any user action.

Not, e.g., in Firefox.


--
John
My funny .sig is on backorder.

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2008-08-23, John Hosking wrote:
>> ...
>>> Its's vowel is an "i". [Line 2] or
>>
>> So is it's vowel.
>>

Yes!

>
> So is it is vowel?
>

No!

--
John
Clearing things up for people all across usenet...

John Hosking wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>> On 2008-08-23, John Hosking wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Its's vowel is an "i". [Line 2] or
>>>
>>> So is it's vowel.
>>>
>
> Yes!
>
>>
>> So is it is vowel?
>>
>
> No!
>

Agreed. I just was expanding his contraction to show that is usage was
incorrect.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> John Hosking wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 2008-08-23, John Hosking wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Its's vowel is an "i".
>>>>
>>>> So is it's vowel.
>>>>
>>
>> Yes!
>>
>>>
>>> So is it is vowel?
>>>
>>
>> No!
>>
>
> Agreed. I just was expanding his contraction to show that is usage was
> incorrect.
>

But it wasn't. Chris didn't use a contraction.

--
John
Read *it* again...