Posted by Charles Sweeney on 10/14/01 11:24

William Tasso wrote

> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster,alt.html
> From the safety of the No thank you cafeteria
> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> said:
>> It's not. It's anything but the same. You don't get the mood, the
>> feel, the ethos, the subliminal influences. A crap logo identifies
>> the organisation, but also tells you (amongst other things) that they
>> may not be a serious outfit. Just as a quality logo has the opposite
>> effect. Text can't do that.
>
> No, it can't. But a text only UA/speech UA/Radio/etc. can never
> 'show' the logo either. One useful treatment is to use the company
> name and the strapline in such circumstances.
>
> "Bodgit Bros IT - Making computers make cents."

But that doesn't tell me there's an image there. I don't understand
this idea of doing everything but tell the surfer that the page has been
made with an image in that place. It seems like it's the very last
thing you must do, and should be avoided at all costs! It's a secret!
WHY??

>> Again, better to give the user the organisation name, and tell them
>> there's a logo there. Sighted people get the organisation name, and
>> can choose to view the logo. Blind people still get the organisation
>> name. What possible drawback can there be to stating that there's a
>> logo there??
>
> What you are describing is a description of the page, rather than a
> representation of its content.

Precisely. Text cannot represent images, so it is pointless to try to
do so. This is why one should instead desribe the offering.
Alternatively, if an image is meaningless the user agent should ignore
it if it doesn't have alt text, without needing to use the silly alt="".

>> When I surf with images turned off, I find the alt text "picture
>> of..." very helpful. It tells me first of all that there is an image
>> there, and it helps me to know if I should choose to view it.
>>
>> If the alt text says "organisation name logo", I might choose to view
>> it because I am interested in logos.
>
> Yes, that is one instance when it's useful to know there is a logo
> present - surely such a researcher would be using a graphical UA?

A researcher perhaps. I'm talking about myself doing normal surfing
with images off, and chancing upon something. In any event, what
problem or inconvenience is caused for the surfer by stating that it's a
logo?

>> If the alt-text does not tell me it's a picture (or logo) then the
>> page does not read well. I see little snippets of text, but
>> completely out of sync with the surrounding text.
>
> and that is exactly the issue.
>
> ok - one other thought to throw into the mix. The title attribute,
> containing a description of the image can probably be the same
> regardless of context. The alt attribute however is very much
> context sensitive.

With images off the "title" attribute does not display unless one hovers
over the place where the image is. But one does not know that there is
any image there in the first place, so you can't hover over something
that you don't know is there!!!

You still get the alt text looking out of sync because it is not telling
you that it is the alt text for an image.

Simply stating in the alt text that there is an image there, solves this
problem! What inconvenince is there to the user to do this?

>> But "picture of..." or "...logo"
>> tells me all I need to know, and does not get confused with
>> surrounding text.
>
> You know what, it seems to me there are many opportunities for
> throwing a completely crap page at a visitor. Also, there are few
> absolutes in this issue. I suggest a useful treatment of this subject
> would be made by presenting a real page from a real site and
> discussing/chronicling its development in here.

Good idea.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

[Back to original message]