Heya

I know that the "alt" attributes contribute to SEO, but I was wondering if the "title" ones do as well? I've been trying to keep it with the "alt" being the description of the image, i.e. photo of Eden project, and then for the "title" it's been something along the lines of "Information on the Garden Offers"

Is that okay? Or will this not help the SEO for that particular page?

Thanks in advance
P

I believe this article will help ya out!

http://fadtastic.net/2007/04/19/proper-use...tle-attributes/

According to that article we are to use both....
I better get busy.. I haven't been using the Title!

It did just that! Thanks Jacob!

Is there anything that people DON'T know here?!?! You're all walking databases/encylopedias aren't you? I love it here!

We were all beginners at some point, and know what it's like. I've been to forums asking for help in the past, you know, those silly noob questions and they turned me away. When we were at WF and when we created this forum our policy was and as far as I am concerned will always be to help everyone no matter how silly the question may be!

I hate it when I see famous designers and developers that forgot that they were new at one time as well. We all have our specialties and can teach others what we already know and help them learn. To me, there is nothing more rewarding then helping someone learn something they really want to learn. Although, in this case I just gave you a link...hehe. I'm soooo lazy!

Pretty soon after you have sucked up everyones knowledge you'll be another Mike Hopley; out to save the world with your amazing knowledge. (I swear I think Mike Hopley was born with the W3C guidelines built right into his brain.)

Mike's middle name is "W3C"

You guys are too kind. I just have an academic background, so I'm experienced and comfortable reading long, dry academic documents. The same academic background has trained me to place more importance on reading the source documents, and less importance on reading commentaries.

The W3C guidelines are dull reading, but I find them quite easy to understand because they are structured and logical.

That article is incorrect.



The W3C specifications require all images to have an ALT attribute. Links are not allowed an ALT attribute (what a stupid idea!), and neither links nor images require a TITLE attribute.

Using ALT and TITLE on everything is stupid. It certainly does not "eliminate almost all accessibility problems". There's a lot more to accessibility than that! Indeed, indiscriminate addition of ALT/TITLE information is harmful to accessibility: it floods screenreaders with useless information.

Their advice about choosing ALT text is dreadful. ALT text should be an alternative to seeing the image. It should never be used for "adding the title of the image" or for "adding an image citation / photo credit". This is an abuse of ALT text that is harmful to accessibility. Don't use ALT text to stuff extra meta-information about your image (you could use TITLE for this).

The best guideline for choosing ALT text is this: ask yourself what role the image plays for sighted visitors; then, providing it plays a meaningful role and is not just decorative fluff, try to capture that idea using words instead. For decorative images, the ALT should be blank (alt="").

Rather than use TITLE on every link, try to write descriptive link text. This is better practice because it's immediately visible (most users won't see the TITLE); using good link text negates the need for TITLEs on most links.

TITLE is there if you want to add or clarify information about the link. But it's not a substitute for descriptive link text.

This post has been edited by MikeHopley: May 30 2008, 06:22 AM

This makes much more sense to me than the article did.
Thanks Mike. This is much more in line with what I do!
Phew.

Glad to help.

There's a valuable lesson here: don't assume someone knows better than you, just because he writes confidently! Being open-minded is good; being credulous is not.

Cultivating a cynical mind has some advantages. I expect most people to be wrong about most things most of the time.

(Actually, almost everyone is wrong about almost everything almost all of the time. Epistemology 101. But I should probably stay quiet about that. )

This post has been edited by MikeHopley: May 30 2008, 06:19 AM

MEGA ROFL


that one's definitely going in my quotes collection! or maybe even in my sig

Sorry to be dim, but I thought that wasn't valid XHTML Strict? Or have I got myself confused again? In instances such as this, is it okay to 'cop' a non validated page?

[offtopic]Talking of sigs, yours is hysterical! Vanessa's old one was one of my favourites.[/offtopic]

No, it's perfectly valid. Try it.

The ALT attribute must be present on all images, but may be left blank. Just to make that clear:



Although if you find yourself using a lot of blank ALTs, you should consider whether they would be better as CSS backgrounds.

This post has been edited by MikeHopley: May 31 2008, 04:04 AM

Hi guys,

I just wanted to speak my mind as I disagree with a lot of what Mike is saying, no offense of course.



On the contrary, this statement is entirely correct. If your main goal is to provide a FULLY accessible website, then yes, you MUST use both ALT and TITLE tags, as there it is impossible to know which readers/browsers someone will be using.



This is incorrect. The XHTML Strict DOCTYPE requires this, not the W3C specs in their entirety. As DOCTYPES are a guideline, not a requisite, they are essentially irrelevant to accessibility. This is not to say that I do not believe in supporting standards, I'm all about it, but this is not the case in reality.



Yes, there are definitely many more accessibility issues other than just ALT and TITLE tags! The complete scope of this would be difficult to say at best. I don't understand how providing too much information is stupid compared to the possibility of a visitor not being provided potentially vital information because it was thought to have been redundant?



Yes, ALT tags are commonly abused for SEO purposes, but this is irrelevant to accessibility, their true purpose. This statement brings up a good point, however. If the alternative description of the image being displayed is not relevant to the content of the page, should the image even be displayed along with the content? (which you mentioned in the subsequent statement in your post) Personally I try to follow this methodology with my design and SEO practices, although it simply doesn't make sense at times due to other [offtopic] reasons such as load times, etc.



The use of blank ALT attributes is stupid, and yes, I do it too! to satisfy my "buddy" XHTML Strict. I can't disagree with the W3C on this though, it makes perfect sense. Use an ALT tag in case the visitor can't see the image. If the image is irrelevant then don't put it on the page! lol



I agree. The TITLE attribute is essentially ambiguous and can provide a lot of useless or redundant information if used incorrectly, aside from being used abusively in SEO.



Popje,


On the contrary, this is being used only to satisfy XHTML Strict requirements.

OK, enough out of me for now!

Rich

I love it when people take the time to voice their opinions!

Just because one person thinks it's wrong, it doesn't mean everyone is on the same page. Thank you, you both of you ( Mike and Rich)!

Nonsense. You don't improve accessibility by cramming in information indiscriminately. You certainly don't improve accessibility by adding ALTs to links.

Accessible design involves both understanding the ideas behind the standards (ALT is for alternative text), and also the practical reality as experienced by users (see below).

You cannot cover all eventualities. There is no such thing as a FULLY accessible website. For example, what about people with a reading age of (say) five? Are you going to write your website purely in words that a five-year-old can understand?




More is not necessarily better.

Have you ever actually used a screen reader? It's incredibly annoying to be bombarded with superfluous information, because a web designer is too verbose. Lots of superfluous information can cause difficulty moving around a page, and also reduces comprehension of the main text.




No it's not, as you would know if you had ever used a screen reader. And it's not just XHTML Strict, but also HTML Strict -- in other words, the only two doctypes that are worth using (I'll extend that much magnanimity towards XHTML...just this once ).

If you don't provide an ALT attribute, screen readers and text browsers will supply the filename of the image. Imagine that: you're reading a web page, and suddenly the text is interrupted with "image: blue_girl_100005678.jpg".

By setting alt="", you inform the screen reader that this image should be ignored, and therefore the screen reader skips over it entirely.




Decorative images are an obviously legitimate example.

Not all communication can be achieved through text. The psychological effect of a colour scheme, for example, cannot be rendered textually. For the same reason, the psychological effect of decorative images (they make people like your site more) cannot be rendered textually.

Some elements of a website are fundamentally impossible for blind people to experience. Yet because a blind person cannot experience the effect of decorative images and nice colour schemes, does that mean you should remove them? Of course not. Your sighted visitors appreciate them.

You should, however, prevent them from becoming an encumbrance to your blind visitors. So set alt="", and these images won't get in the way.

Better yet, apply all purely decorative images as a CSS background. For this reason, I hardly ever use alt="".

There are some edge cases, however. What about photos whose caption text is the same as the ALT text you would choose? If the caption already exists, there's no sense repeating it. Again, the best way to get a feel for this is to use a screen reader or text browser.