|
|
Posted by dorayme on 07/12/07 21:31
In article
<1184243130.472013.68120@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:19 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <5fbgq8F3atmd...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "J.O. Aho" <u...@example.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, you should have both [alt and title in images].
> >
> > I don't think you _should_ have both. You should have the alt.
> > You may have the title if you want the tool-tip. But you are
> > perfectly entitled not to want this.
> >
> > In Witness, John Book asks what is wrong with buttons when trying
> > on a suit that Rachel has modified for his size. He asks if there
> > is something wrong with buttons, there being no buttons. The
> > reply is that no buttons is plain and good. In fact, Amish
> > authors are forbidden by their church to have title attributes.
> >
> > --
> > dorayme
>
> You should have both. IE6 displays alt tags as hovering tool tips,
> which may not be relevant to most visitors. Title tags are supposed to
> be visible. Alts aren't.
You need to say why in more detail. You did not understand my
argument from hollywood? Why _should_ you have a title? It is
generaly understood why an alt is needed. But why must an author
organise, effectively, for a tooltip on all images?
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|