Posted by SpaceGirl on 07/13/07 09:59

On Jul 12, 10:31 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <1184243130.472013.68...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@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

You should have a title on all images to prevent IE stupidly
displaying your alt tags. <img src="border.gif" alt="cosmetic
graphic" title="" />

:)

I honestly don't think it matters, but IE's instance on displaying
alts as tooltips is... stupid!

[Back to original message]