Posted by dorayme on 06/03/07 23:13

In article <Xns994362DA21634arbpenyahoocom@69.28.186.121>,
Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed cwdjrxyz <spamtrap2@cwdjr.info>
> writing in news:1180658489.074166.206810@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Also if you write
> > alt="", the W3C html validator is satisfied. This usually would not be
> > a good idea, but it might help in some special case, although I can
> > not think of a good reason for a blank alt text at the moment.
> >
>
> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
> example:
>
> <h1><img src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company
> Name</h1>
>
> or
>
> <h1><a href="index.php" title="Return to Company Index Page"><img
> src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company Name</a>
> </h1>
>

When

<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#
H30>

becomes law (ferreted out by Bergamot), this will not be right
for the latter. Severe penalties will apply for not filling out
between the "s

Personally I like the title idea and have used it myself;
sometimes, even for text links as an additional (optional) help.

I guess it does make sense to also put in replacement text in the
alt for those situations where the title does not work or is too
quick in appearance or not available for other reasons (mouseless
browsing?)

This is so in general. But the law is still not a little god and
there are exceptional circumstances. When the level of hysteria
about this matter gets to fever pitch and people are demanding to
see the exceptions and they put up some money, that is when I
deliver and collect.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]