ALT text block for image

Is there any way to force the text block that pops up for an image to
have a longer display time?

I have an imagemap with lots of areas that contain specific "ALT="
text to help identify the portion of the image the cursor is hovering
over. In some cases, a lot of text is displayed but the text block
disappears too quickly to allow you to read the whole thing. I just
wondered if there was a way to specify that the block remain on the
screen until the cursor moves away from that portion of the image?

Or is there a better way to do this?

Sandy

Re: ALT text block for image

Sandy wrote:
> Is there any way to force the text block that pops up for an image to
> have a longer display time?

No.


> I have an imagemap with lots of areas that contain specific "ALT="
> text to help identify the portion of the image the cursor is hovering
> over. In some cases, a lot of text is displayed but the text block
> disappears too quickly to allow you to read the whole thing. I just
> wondered if there was a way to specify that the block remain on the
> screen until the cursor moves away from that portion of the image?
>
> Or is there a better way to do this?

The TITLE attribute, perhaps. Or don't use an imagemap that is not
self-explanatory enough.


Matthias

Re: ALT text block for image

Sandy wrote:
> Is there any way to force the text block that pops up for an image to
> have a longer display time?

http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/faq.htm#force

> I have an imagemap with lots of areas that contain specific "ALT="
> text to help identify the portion of the image the cursor is hovering
> over.

Alternative text is just that: alternative text. A couple of obsolete
browsers misuse it for tooltips, but it should only be used as an
alternative to the image if it can't be displayed for some reason. The
title attribute is what you should be using.

> In some cases, a lot of text is displayed but the text block
> disappears too quickly to allow you to read the whole thing. I just
> wondered if there was a way to specify that the block remain on the
> screen until the cursor moves away from that portion of the image?

You could try using some kind of JavaScript solution in addition to
using the title attribute, but never rely on any kind of tooltip working.

Re: ALT text block for image

Quoth the raven Sandy:

> I have an imagemap with lots of areas that contain specific "ALT="
> text to help identify the portion of the image the cursor is
> hovering over.

You must be using a broken browser then. Alt text is not for hover
display, that is what the title attribute is for. In my browser of
choice, your alt text would not be displayed.

> Or is there a better way to do this?

alt=""
title="I want you to read all this text when you hover ..."
...

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Re: ALT text block for image

Sandy :

> Is there any way to force the text block that pops up for an
> image to have a longer display time?

If you are referring to the alt or title attribute being
displayed graphically then you would have to rewrite the code of
the browser in question. Or disable images so you can see the
alternative text.

> I have an imagemap with lots of areas that contain specific
> "ALT=" text to help identify the portion of the image the
> cursor is hovering over. [...]
> Or is there a better way to do this?

Perhaps if your images aren't easy enough to figure out where I
might go you would be better served with different images and/or
actual text.

Another option would be to look into some DHTML method to display
the extra text when the browser supports such things.

--
Rob McAninch
http://rock13.com Perl Programming and
Web Stuff: http://rock13.com/webhelp

Re: ALT text block for image

In alt.html Sandy said:

> Is there any way to force

http://webtips.dan.info/force.html

> the text block that pops up for an image to have a longer display
> time?

use a browser other than IE where the tooltip remains visible until the
mouse moves.

> I have an imagemap

usability/accessibility issues. you probably shouldn't be using it

> with lots of areas that contain specific "ALT="
> text to help identify the portion of the image the cursor

your design is broken if it needs tooltips to "help"

> is hovering over.

'alt' is not meant to display a 'tooltip'. the 'title' attribute usually
does.

alt = text [CS]
For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this
attribute specifies alternate text. The language of the alternate text
is specified by the lang attribute.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt

title = text [CS]
This attribute offers advisory information about the element for which
it is set.[...]
Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a
variety of ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display the
title as a "tool tip" (a short message that appears when the pointing
device pauses over an object). Audio user agents may speak the title
information in a similar context. For example, setting the attribute on
a link allows user agents (visual and non-visual) to tell users about
the nature of the linked resource:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#adef-title

The "tooltip" effect and the title attribute
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html#tooltip

> In some cases, a lot of text is displayed but the text block
> disappears too quickly to allow you to read the whole thing.

you've got yourself stuck on a particular course of action. give it up.
the solution is to redesign your broken design.


--


v o i c e s

Re: ALT text block for image

Leif K-Brooks wrote in news:2ti3ooF202ndvU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> Alternative text is just that: alternative text. A couple of obsolete
> browsers misuse it for tooltips, but it should only be used as an
> alternative to the image if it can't be displayed for some reason.

Why only then?

Re: ALT text block for image

Sam Hughes wrote:

>> Alternative text is just that: alternative text. A couple of obsolete
>> browsers misuse it for tooltips, but it should only be used as an
>> alternative to the image if it can't be displayed for some reason.
>
> Why only then?

What do you think "alternative" (or "alternate") means?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Re: ALT text block for image

In alt.html Jukka K. Korpela said:

> What do you think "alternative" (or "alternate") means?

· unemployed.
· grow/sell/smoke drugs.
· fear of soap and water.
· delude yourself into thinking you can play bongo drums and in public.
· lots of body decorations/mutilations especially from african origins.
· grow dreadlocks and have small creatures living in them.

--


v o i c e s

Re: ALT text block for image

"Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in
news:Xns9587B9CEC360jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31:

> Sam Hughes wrote:
>
>>> Alternative text is just that: alternative text. A couple of obsolete
>>> browsers misuse it for tooltips, but it should only be used as an
>>> alternative to the image if it can't be displayed for some reason.
>>
>> Why only then?
>
> What do you think "alternative" (or "alternate") means?

But why _only_ then should a browser reveal the alternate text? If a
reader who sees an image wants to know what the image's alternate text is,
there is no reason to stop him.

Re: ALT text block for image

On 19 Oct 2004 01:15:43 GMT, Sam Hughes declared in
alt.html:

> But why _only_ then should a browser reveal the alternate text?

Because it is an *alternative*. You render the image, or alternately,
the text.

> If a
> reader who sees an image wants to know what the image's alternate text is,
> there is no reason to stop him.

If you mean stop him (or her ;-) ) looking at the page source, of course
not. In Mozilla, if you right click an image and view its properties, it
tells you the alt text. I don't see a problem with that. But the text
should not be shown on the page in addition to the image, including as a
tooltip.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
"Never drink rum&coke whilst reading usenet" - rf 2004

Re: ALT text block for image

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:55:22 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:

>Quoth the raven Sandy:
>
>> I have an imagemap with lots of areas that contain specific "ALT="
>> text to help identify the portion of the image the cursor is
>> hovering over.
>
>You must be using a broken browser then. Alt text is not for hover
>display, that is what the title attribute is for. In my browser of
>choice, your alt text would not be displayed.
>
>> Or is there a better way to do this?
>
> > alt=""
> title="I want you to read all this text when you hover ..."
> ...

I'm using IE6 and only the ALT tag will display all the text. If I
stick it in the TITLE, only the first line is displayed. That isn't
acceptable for my purposes.

Sandy

Re: ALT text block for image

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:19:46 +1000, brucie
wrote:
>
>> In some cases, a lot of text is displayed but the text block
>> disappears too quickly to allow you to read the whole thing.
>
>you've got yourself stuck on a particular course of action. give it up.
>the solution is to redesign your broken design.

I don't have a broken design. What I have are limitations on what I
want to appear. :) My image is a map which I want to enhance with
commentary. I want the user to be able to see the whole map and when
the mouse hovers over a position on the map, they can see the
commentary about that particular site. I could use a graphics program
to stick little boxes all over the place with the appropriate text,
but then the map would be too cluttered. The popup tooltips seem like
the ideal solution. I tried putting the text in the TITLE but only
the first line displays. Only the ALT text will display everything
albeit for a short time. Javascript could put the text in the status
bar but that is kind of awkward.

Sandy

Re: ALT text block for image

Sandy

> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:55:22 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> wrote:

> > > > alt=""
> > title="I want you to read all this text when you hover ..."
> > ...
>
> I'm using IE6 and only the ALT tag

Attribute. It is an alt attribute.

> will display all the text. If I
> stick it in the TITLE, only the first line is displayed.

Er, what?

The title attribute will be displayed on however many lines it takes to fit
it all in.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Re: ALT text block for image

In alt.html Sandy said:

> I'm using IE6

no one cares what you use. its what your visitors uses that matters.

> and only the ALT tag will display all the text.

it behavior is the same as title

> If I stick it in the TITLE, only the first line is displayed.

IE6 will display title text until there is so much it can no longer fit
within the browser window. at full screen 800x600 thats almost 3k of
text.

> That isn't acceptable for my purposes.

your design is broken. dump it and start again or just continue wasting
your time.


--


v o i c e s

Re: ALT text block for image

In alt.html Sandy said:

> >you've got yourself stuck on a particular course of action. give it up.
> >the solution is to redesign your broken design.

> I don't have a broken design.

yes you do. rethink what you're trying to achieve and start again.

> What I have are limitations

you can waste your time if you like but don't waste mine.


--


v o i c e s

Re: ALT text block for image

Mark Parnell wrote in
news:198bk9yl7g8x5.13wemtdtlwzby$.dlg@40tude.net:

> On 19 Oct 2004 01:15:43 GMT, Sam Hughes declared in
> alt.html:
>
>> But why _only_ then should a browser reveal the alternate text?
>
> Because it is an *alternative*. You render the image, or alternately,
> the text.

Your logic seems to be as follows:
1. Alt text must be rendered if the image is not rendered.
2. ???
3. Therefore, if the image is rendered, the contents of the alt text should
not be made available to the user.

Please fill in the "???".

>> If a reader who sees an image wants to know what the image's alternate
>> text is, there is no reason to stop him.
>
> [...] But the text should not be shown on the page in addition to the
> image, including as a tooltip.

Why not?

Re: ALT text block for image

On 19 Oct 2004 02:16:52 GMT, Sam Hughes declared in
alt.html:
> Mark Parnell wrote in
> news:198bk9yl7g8x5.13wemtdtlwzby$.dlg@40tude.net:
>> [...] But the text should not be shown on the page in addition to the
>> image, including as a tooltip.
>
> Why not?

Because it's an *alternative*.

al·ter·na·tive (n.)

1. a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.
b. A situation presenting such a choice.
c. Either of these possibilities.

Note: *mutually exclusive*. That means if you have one, you cannot have
the other. That is what an alternative is.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
"Never drink rum&coke whilst reading usenet" - rf 2004

Re: ALT text block for image

brucie wrote:
> In alt.html Jukka K. Korpela said:
>
>> What do you think "alternative" (or "alternate") means?
>
> · unemployed.
> · grow/sell/smoke drugs.
> · fear of soap and water.
> · delude yourself into thinking you can play bongo drums and in
> public. · lots of body decorations/mutilations especially from
> african origins. · grow dreadlocks and have small creatures living in
> them.

speaking of which, i recently went to the mullimbimbi markets with the wife
and kids. that was interesting.

Re: ALT text block for image

In alt.html Robert Frost-Bridges said:

> http://www.porjes.com/butterflies/index.php

yuck!

http://butterflies.usenetshit.info/

--


v o i c e s

Re: ALT text block for image

Sam Hughes wrote:
> But why _only_ then should a browser reveal the alternate text? If a
> reader who sees an image wants to know what the image's alternate text
> is, there is no reason to stop him.

Perhaps we could add another attribute, "comp", which would display
it's value as a caption to the image?

--
frostie
http://brightonfixedodds.net

Re: ALT text block for image

Sandy wrote:


> I don't have a broken design. What I have are limitations on what I
> want to appear. :) My image is a map which I want to enhance with
> commentary. I want the user to be able to see the whole map and when
> the mouse hovers over a position on the map, they can see the
> commentary about that particular site.
[...]

You could probably do something with brucie's butterflies,
http://www.porjes.com/butterflies/index.php

Slice the map up in to separate images and then as the users click their
way around the relevant text pops up with any further links required
included.

--
frostie
http://brightonfixedodds.net

Re: ALT text block for image

brucie wrote:

> In alt.html Robert Frost-Bridges said:
>
>> http://www.porjes.com/butterflies/index.php
>
> yuck!
>
> http://butterflies.usenetshit.info/
>

Yeah, that's better. GoogleGroups gave me the one I posted, I think the
op could make something of this.

--
frostie
http://brightonfixedodds.net

Re: ALT text block for image

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:09:31 GMT, "rf" wrote:

>Attribute. It is an alt attribute.

thank you for the clarification

>> will display all the text. If I
>> stick it in the TITLE, only the first line is displayed.
>
>Er, what?
>
>The title attribute will be displayed on however many lines it takes to fit
>it all in.

I wouldn't have written that only one line is displayed if it didn't
happen that way.

Sandy

Re: ALT text block for image

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:12:45 +1000, brucie
wrote:

>In alt.html Sandy said:
>
>> I'm using IE6
>
>no one cares what you use. its what your visitors uses that matters.

Uhm, excuse me, but there is going to be at least a certain percentage
that uses IE6 and if it isn't working for me, then it isn't going to
be working for them. Right?

>
>> and only the ALT tag will display all the text.
>
>it behavior is the same as title
>
>> If I stick it in the TITLE, only the first line is displayed.
>
>IE6 will display title text until there is so much it can no longer fit
>within the browser window. at full screen 800x600 thats almost 3k of
>text.

Didn't happen that way for me....only the first line
displayed....that's why I posted my message that way.

>
>> That isn't acceptable for my purposes.
>
>your design is broken. dump it and start again or just continue wasting
>your time.

You haven't seen my 'design', so how can you say it is broken? It
could just be that HTML doesn't provide me with the tools I really
need.

Sandy

Re: ALT text block for image

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:57:54 +0000, Robert Frost-Bridges
wrote:

>> commentary. I want the user to be able to see the whole map and when
>> the mouse hovers over a position on the map, they can see the
>> commentary about that particular site.
> [...]
>
>You could probably do something with brucie's butterflies,
>http://www.porjes.com/butterflies/index.php
>
>Slice the map up in to separate images and then as the users click their
>way around the relevant text pops up with any further links required
>included.

Actually, I already have that. You've probably misread what my
problem is. I am already trying to display relevant text in the pop
up -- which it does. What it doesn't do, is remain on the screen long
enough to read ALL of the relevant text.

Thank you for your suggestion, though.
Sandy

Re: ALT text block for image

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:12:08 GMT, Sandy wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:09:31 GMT, "rf" wrote:
>> The title attribute will be displayed on however many lines it takes to
>> fit
>> it all in.
>
> I wouldn't have written that only one line is displayed if it didn't
> happen that way.

The problem is that rf is right, that's how it's supposed to work. If it
doesn't, that's an issue.

Check out http://users.rcn.com/neal413/titletest.html and describe what
you see as a tooltip on each drawing of me in a hat.

For me:

alt and title set - IE6 and Opera, full title displayed; Firefox,
truncated title and I can find no simple way to correct this. :0\

alt, no title - IE6 displays alt in tooltip, nothing in Opera or Firefox

title, no alt - same as title and alt set. :0\

Re: ALT text block for image

Robert Frost-Bridges wrote:
> Sam Hughes wrote:
>
>>But why _only_ then should a browser reveal the alternate text? If a
>>reader who sees an image wants to know what the image's alternate text
>>is, there is no reason to stop him.
>
> Perhaps we could add another attribute, "comp", which would display
> it's value as a caption to the image?

Wouldn't work for image maps, which is what the OP's talking about. For
other images, what's wrong with adding a caption with ordinary CSS?

Re: ALT text block for image

Sandy wrote:
> It
> could just be that HTML doesn't provide me with the tools I really
> need.

Sounds to me like you're trying to do something HTML was never designed
to do. If you're trying to imitate a desktop application in a browser,
start over with a genuine desktop application (hopefully for an intranet
only); if not, your design is broken.

Re: ALT text block for image

Mark Parnell wrote in
news:fi6ylfdpurmm.js9o4zyx7gek$.dlg@40tude.net:

> On 19 Oct 2004 02:16:52 GMT, Sam Hughes declared in
> alt.html:
>> Mark Parnell wrote in
>> news:198bk9yl7g8x5.13wemtdtlwzby$.dlg@40tude.net:
>>> [...] But the text should not be shown on the page in addition to the
>>> image, including as a tooltip.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Because it's an *alternative*.

But you see, the only reason it's an alternative is because you are
*calling* it an alternative.

Would you say then that Mozilla is doing things wrong in that it allows
readers to see an image's alternate text when the image is displayed? It
does do this -- a user can right-click and select "Properties...", where
the alt text is listed. Should Mozilla be modified to hide this
information? It seems to me that you are arguing that they should.

Re: ALT text block for image

On 19 Oct 2004 16:14:28 GMT, Sam Hughes wrote:
> But you see, the only reason it's an alternative is because you are
> *calling* it an alternative.

What else do you propose alt would mean?

Re: ALT text block for image

In article <468an0tmmun733em58ojcri3n52m4r6sr3@4ax.com>,
Sandy wrote:

> >> That isn't acceptable for my purposes.
> >
> >your design is broken. dump it and start again or just continue wasting
> >your time.
>
> You haven't seen my 'design', so how can you say it is broken? It
> could just be that HTML doesn't provide me with the tools I really
> need.

Design isn't decoration. Design achieves something, like in your case
"User picks a geographic location and gets to know more of that
location". If that is the goal of your design and it does not achieve
this, then you made a bad design.

Note that there are plenty of possibilities to achieve the mentioned
goal; nothing says that it has to be an image map, or that it only has
to be an image map. Also know that I (and plenty of people with me) are
geographically challenged and wouldn't know where to point on a map of
Holland, were I looking for a location there. I live in Holland. And it
is one of the smallest countries in Europe! Were I to choose from a
list, or to enter the location in a search field, I would easily succeed
in finding it.

--
Kris
(nl)

Re: ALT text block for image

In article ,
Neal wrote:

> > But you see, the only reason it's an alternative is because you are
> > *calling* it an alternative.
>
> What else do you propose alt would mean?

Although.

--
Kris
(nl)

Re: ALT text block for image

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:37:36 -0400, Neal wrote:

>> I wouldn't have written that only one line is displayed if it didn't
>> happen that way.
>
>The problem is that rf is right, that's how it's supposed to work. If it
>doesn't, that's an issue.
>
>Check out http://users.rcn.com/neal413/titletest.html and describe what
>you see as a tooltip on each drawing of me in a hat.

Cute example. Everything displayed as it has been suggested that it
would.

I now see what was different in my test of the title 'attribute'. My
text has an initial line followed by a carriage return (not a coded
CR, nor a \n -- just text I typed in and followed up by hitting the
enter key), and then another line followed by a carriage return, and
then several none interrupted lines.

The alt attribute will display it exactly as I typed it.
The title attribute will only display the first line. When it
encounters a carriage return, it quits.

At least now I understand what it's doing, though not necessarily why.
Thanks for your example.

Sandy

Re: ALT text block for image

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:23:04 GMT, Sandy wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:37:36 -0400, Neal wrote:
>> Check out http://users.rcn.com/neal413/titletest.html and describe what
>> you see as a tooltip on each drawing of me in a hat.
>
> Cute example.

I drew that myself, you know.

> At least now I understand what it's doing, though not necessarily why.
> Thanks for your example.

I'm still wondering why Firefox screws it up. Anyone know?

Re: ALT text block for image

In alt.html Disco Octopus said:

> speaking of which, i recently went to the mullimbimbi markets with the wife
> and kids.

nice 4x4 country up in the back blocks there.

> that was interesting.

i bet it was.

--


v o i c e s

Re: ALT text block for image

Sam Hughes wrote:

> But you see, the only reason it's an alternative is because you are
> *calling* it an alternative.

Did you actually look at the HTML specifications on this? We have not
made up the meaning.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Re: ALT text block for image

"Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in
news:Xns9587EC1D57B1Ejkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31:

> Sam Hughes wrote:
>
>> But you see, the only reason it's an alternative is because you are
>> *calling* it an alternative.
>
> Did you actually look at the HTML specifications on this? We have not
> made up the meaning.

But though it is specified as an alternative, that does not mean it is bad
for a browser to tell the user what the alternate text is in a secondary
manner.

For instance, Firefox will show the reader an image's alternate text if the
reader right-clicks and selects "properties." Do you see anything wrong
with this behavior?

Re: ALT text block for image

On 19 Oct 2004 21:25:40 GMT, Sam Hughes wrote:

> But though it is specified as an alternative, that does not mean it is
> bad
> for a browser to tell the user what the alternate text is in a secondary
> manner.
>
> For instance, Firefox will show the reader an image's alternate text if
> the
> reader right-clicks and selects "properties." Do you see anything wrong
> with this behavior?

No, but that's an optional way to view details about an image. Viewing
source code does the same thing.

Re: ALT text block for image

Leif K-Brooks wrote:

> Wouldn't work for image maps, which is what the OP's talking about.
> For other images, what's wrong with adding a caption with ordinary
> CSS?

Sorry Leif, I wasn't actually serious, I was just trying to illustrate
why alternate text was 'alternate' and not complimentary.
Not very well obviously.

--
frostie
http://brightonfixedodds.net

Re: ALT text block for image

Neal wrote in news:opsf4zh6ve6v6656
@news.individual.net:

> On 19 Oct 2004 21:25:40 GMT, Sam Hughes wrote:
>
>> But though it is specified as an alternative, that does not mean it is
>> bad
>> for a browser to tell the user what the alternate text is in a secondary
>> manner.
>>
>> For instance, Firefox will show the reader an image's alternate text if
>> the
>> reader right-clicks and selects "properties." Do you see anything wrong
>> with this behavior?
>
> No, but that's an optional way to view details about an image. Viewing
> source code does the same thing.

And how is that different from an optional way to view details about an
image that is called a tooltip?

Re: ALT text block for image

On 19 Oct 2004 21:57:55 GMT, Sam Hughes wrote:

> Neal wrote in news:opsf4zh6ve6v6656
> @news.individual.net:
>> No, but that's an optional way to view details about an image. Viewing
>> source code does the same thing.
>
> And how is that different from an optional way to view details about an
> image that is called a tooltip?

In the viewport vs external to the viewport. Since it appears on hover,
the user can get this without you wanting it. You can get it with title,
but you shouldn't get it with alt.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that it's a tragic problem, just that there's no
really good reason to do that.

Re: ALT text block for image

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:38:36 -0400, Neal declared in
alt.html:

>>> Check out http://users.rcn.com/neal413/titletest.html
> I'm still wondering why Firefox screws it up. Anyone know?

By screws it up, I assume you mean that it doesn't display the whole
title? Mozilla does the same. I get:
"This is an extremely long title, intended to wrap and take up some
serious space, which..."

Weird. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
"Never drink rum&coke whilst reading usenet" - rf 2004

Re: ALT text block for image

Sam Hughes wrote:

> "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in
> news:Xns9587EC1D57B1Ejkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31:
>
>> Sam Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> But you see, the only reason it's an alternative is because you are
>>> *calling* it an alternative.
>>
>> Did you actually look at the HTML specifications on this? We have
>> not made up the meaning.
>
> But though it is specified as an alternative, that does not mean it
> is bad for a browser to tell the user what the alternate text is in a
> secondary manner.

That might be your opinion, but as you see, alt is _defined_ as an
alternative. It's not just our calling it that way.

> For instance, Firefox will show the reader an image's alternate text
> if the reader right-clicks and selects "properties." Do you see
> anything wrong with this behavior?

No, not any more that it is wrong for a browser to make e.g. meta element
attributes available in a comparable way, despite the fact that those
attributes shall not be rendered as part of the content proper.

The practical difference between tooltip effects and the Properties
display is that the latter involves a conscious user decision and action,
whereas the tooltip just pops up when you move the mouse _and_ this in
turn has misled authors into thinking that such behavior is the defined
meaning of alt attributes _and_ something they can count on.

Similarly, it is of course acceptable that a user style sheet is used to
make the alt attribute value displayed after (or below or whatever) an
image - and it would not be acceptable to have a browser that behaves in
such a way, e.g. due to its default style sheet.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Re: ALT text block for image

.oO(Mark Parnell)

>By screws it up, I assume you mean that it doesn't display the whole
>title? Mozilla does the same. I get:
>"This is an extremely long title, intended to wrap and take up some
>serious space, which..."
>
>Weird. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45375

Micha

Re: ALT text block for image

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:51:06 +0200, Michael Fesser
declared in alt.html:

> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45375

Thanks. I did have a quick search, but couldn't find anything.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
"Never drink rum&coke whilst reading usenet" - rf 2004

Re: ALT text block for image

In article , Sandy
(barbarowa@yahoo.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...

> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:57:54 +0000, Robert Frost-Bridges
> wrote:
>
> >> commentary. I want the user to be able to see the whole map and when
> >> the mouse hovers over a position on the map, they can see the
> >> commentary about that particular site.
> > [...]
> >
> >You could probably do something with brucie's butterflies,
> >http://www.porjes.com/butterflies/index.php
> >
> >Slice the map up in to separate images and then as the users click their
> >way around the relevant text pops up with any further links required
> >included.
>
> Actually, I already have that. You've probably misread what my
> problem is. I am already trying to display relevant text in the pop
> up -- which it does. What it doesn't do, is remain on the screen long
> enough to read ALL of the relevant text.

Then your text is too long.



alt's just meant to provide a brief description for whatever the picture
is for those that can't see the image. (doesn't load, user's blind,
etc...)


--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

Re: ALT text block for image

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:51:06 +0200, Michael Fesser wrote:

> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45375

Wow, over 4 years old. Can anyone verify the patches at this site work?

Re: ALT text block for image

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:51:06 +0200, Michael Fesser wrote:

> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45375

Wow, over 4 years old. Can anyone verify the patches at this site work?

Re: ALT text block for image

Starshine Moonbeam wrote:

> alt's just meant to provide a brief description for whatever the
> picture is for those that can't see the image.

No, it's meant to _say_ the same thing as the image, as far as possible.

In most cases, there's no point in describing an image that the user does
not see.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Re: ALT text block for image

In article , Jukka K.
Korpela (jkorpela@cs.tut.fi) dropped a +5 bundle of words...

> Starshine Moonbeam wrote:
>
> > alt's just meant to provide a brief description for whatever the
> > picture is for those that can't see the image.
>
> No, it's meant to _say_ the same thing as the image, as far as possible.
>
> In most cases, there's no point in describing an image that the user does
> not see.
>
>

Good point. Thx.

--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

Re: alt text

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> On 30 Mar 2008, dorayme wrote:
>
> >> The last several months I've been trying to include more reasonable
> >> alt text in my images to improve accessibility. The other day I
> >> uploaded a new page and forgot to upload the matching folder
> >> containing the page's images. Here's what I got in Firefox (look
> >> just below the line near the top which says "Featured Images -
> >> Interesting Chairs"):
> >>
> >> http://www.neredbojias.com/tsttst/capalt1b.jpg

> >
> >
> what's the point and how does it relate to my particular lament?

Mine was meant as a test page for how supplied alt text appears in
different browsers under the various conditions one encounters like
image not available, alt text supplied, not supplied beyond "", not
supplied at all. You can see the parameters via the source.

But perhaps it needs better overt explanation on the web page itself
with comments like "No such image was loaded to the server" etc.

Is this something quite irrelevant to your post?

--
dorayme

Re: alt text

On 31 Mar 2008, dorayme wrote:

>> >> The last several months I've been trying to include more reasonable
>> >> alt text in my images to improve accessibility. The other day I
>> >> uploaded a new page and forgot to upload the matching folder
>> >> containing the page's images. Here's what I got in Firefox (look
>> >> just below the line near the top which says "Featured Images -
>> >> Interesting Chairs"):
>> >>
>> >> http://www.neredbojias.com/tsttst/capalt1b.jpg
>
>> >
>> >
>> what's the point and how does it relate to my particular lament?
>
> Mine was meant as a test page for how supplied alt text appears in
> different browsers under the various conditions one encounters like
> image not available, alt text supplied, not supplied beyond "", not
> supplied at all. You can see the parameters via the source.
>
> But perhaps it needs better overt explanation on the web page itself
> with comments like "No such image was loaded to the server" etc.

I think that would be very beneficial. You seem to have covered the
possibilities well but it is a little vacuous just looking at it now.

> Is this something quite irrelevant to your post?

In he sense that the problem I described wouldn't even show up in your
page, yes.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds

Re: alt text

Scripsit Harlan Messinger:

>> "The alt attribute specifies alternate text that is rendered when the
>> image cannot be displayed".
>
> I took the subsequent details to qualify the general statement,

That is, you omitted the statement that is closest to a _definition_ and
quoted only secondary statements after it, and now you're claiming that
they refute it:

> i.e.
> "when the image cannot be displayed owing to client-side factors."
> Since they took the trouble to enumerate three client-side factors,
> it seems reasonable to take the failure to mention the obvious
> server-side factor to be meaningful.

Non sequitur. There is nothing particularly obvious in the "server-side
factor", and no particular reason why they should have listed down more
than three examples. They seldom give even that many examples.

The HTML specifications are generally sloppy, obscure, and partly
self-contradictory, and calling them "standards" is rather ridiculous.
But we have to live with them, and there's no reason to try to read even
more obscurity into them than they have.

We have every right to expect that a browser presents the alt attribute
value whenever it does not present an image specified by the src
attribute of an element. Browsers don't always meet our
expectations, but in cases like this, a bug should be called a bug and
not a feature or implementation-defined thing.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: alt text

dorayme wrote:
> In article <659psbF2etogjU2@mid.individual.net>,
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> "User agents must render alternate text when they cannot support images,
>> they cannot support a certain image type or when they are configured not
>> to display images."
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.2
>
> It is an American thing, I understand, that "alternate" can be used as
> an alternative to "alternative"

I hadn't known that but evidently so. In particular, I didn't realize
that the *noun* "alternate" used to mean "One who is appointed to act in
place of a delegate who is unable to be present; a substitute" is US
usage until looking in the OED just now.

Re: alt text

In article <659psbF2etogjU2@mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger wrote:

> "User agents must render alternate text when they cannot support images,
> they cannot support a certain image type or when they are configured not
> to display images."
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.2

It is an American thing, I understand, that "alternate" can be used as
an alternative to "alternative"

--
dorayme

Re: alt text

In article ,
"Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:

> Scripsit Harlan Messinger:
>
> >> "The alt attribute specifies alternate text that is rendered when the
> >> image cannot be displayed".
> >
> > I took the subsequent details to qualify the general statement,
>
> That is, you omitted the statement that is closest to a _definition_ and
> quoted only secondary statements after it, and now you're claiming that
> they refute it:
>
> > i.e.
> > "when the image cannot be displayed owing to client-side factors."
> > Since they took the trouble to enumerate three client-side factors,
> > it seems reasonable to take the failure to mention the obvious
> > server-side factor to be meaningful.
>
> Non sequitur. There is nothing particularly obvious in the "server-side
> factor", and no particular reason why they should have listed down more
> than three examples. They seldom give even that many examples.
>
> The HTML specifications are generally sloppy, obscure, and partly
> self-contradictory, and calling them "standards" is rather ridiculous.
> But we have to live with them, and there's no reason to try to read even
> more obscurity into them than they have.
>
> We have every right to expect that a browser presents the alt attribute
> value whenever it does not present an image specified by the src
> attribute of an element. Browsers don't always meet our
> expectations, but in cases like this, a bug should be called a bug and
> not a feature or implementation-defined thing.

13.2

"The alt attribute specifies alternate text that is rendered when the
image cannot be displayed (see below for information on how to specify
alternate text ). User agents must render alternate text when they
cannot support images, they cannot support a certain image type or when
they are configured not to display images."

The second sentence begins with a point that includes the possibility
that the image is not available due to it not being on the server at
all. A user agent naturally cannot support something that does not
exist. The writers of this paragraph were elaborating in their second
sentence. No conclusion can be drawn about the elaboration leaving out
anything.

--
dorayme