RE: tlug: HTML again

[Darren Cook <darren@example.com>]

> > If the image is decorative, it doesn't deserve an ALT tag, IMHO. It's just
>
>The image doesn't deserve anything. But the user does. If the author
>is very consistent in always using ALTs for meaningful graphics, then
>not having them for decorations may be okay. But it still would be
>helpful to have, say, a generic label like "icon". That's all of 10
>extra bytes.

Maybe this is coming back to the purpose of your site. If you put
alt="icon" then when the user moves their mouse over it the word icon pops
up. I mostly work on sites where guys with pony tails argue over the
aesthetics of whether an image should be 190 or 195 pixels wide, and having
"icon" pop up just ruins the whole atmosphere. :-).

On documentation and information sites you don't have gratuitous images
like this, so every image deserves an ALT.

> > a waste of bandwidth. The HTML standard doesn't specify it as required.
>
>HTML 4.0 does. Better get used to it.

O'Reilly's Definitive Guide To HTML describes it as optional but
recommended for most images.

Darren




---------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: 20 November, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next Meeting: 12 December, 12:30 Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp