Hi,
I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
width="180">
The actual html from the page is as follows:
href="links.html">
width="180">
Is it possible for anyone to correct the above html because I don't
understand it?
Many thanks
On May 31, 5:36 pm, Lsimmons5
> I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
> Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
> width="180">
So the attribute 'alt' is required, and you haven't specified it.
Step 1: Look up what the alt attribute means: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/attributes.html
Step 2: Do some searching to find out how to use it in practice:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=alt+attribute&ie=utf-8&oe=u tf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
(with http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/altAttribute and http://htmlhelp.com/feature/art3.htm
being particularly good results from that page)
Step 3: Add the code
On May 31, 11:36 am, Lsimmons5
> Hi,
> I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
> Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
> width="180">
>
> The actual html from the page is as follows:
> href="links.html">
> width="180">
>
> Is it possible for anyone to correct the above html because I don't
> understand it?
>
> Many thanks
I agree that it will help if you study "alt" in detail. Within your
img tag you might have alt="big black dog" if your image is a picture
of a black dog. The text alt is required for valid W3C html because
some may have images turned off or not be able to see them for any
reason. Some turn off images to speed up viewing pages on slow
connections. In that case, the alt text appears instead of the image,
and if the alt text is of interest, the viewer may turn the image on.
There are still a very few devices that are text only. Also, some
devices for the blind can speak the alt text so the blind person will
know the nature of the image.
On May 31, 12:36 pm, Lsimmons5
> I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
> Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
> width="180">
Put in an ALT attribute, obviously.
> The actual html from the page is as follows:
> href="links.html">
> width="180">
>
> Is it possible for anyone to correct the above html because I don't
> understand it?
width="180" alt="Links">
The actual value of the "alt" attribute depends on the nature and
purpose of the image, but presuming that the image is a navigation
button that says "Links", then "Links" would be the sensible value for
it.
--
Dan
On May 31, 6:16 pm, Dan
> On May 31, 12:36 pm, Lsimmons5
>
> > I don't know how to correct the following html validation error:
> > Line 254, column 12: required attribute "ALT" not specified .
> > width="180">
>
> Put in an ALT attribute, obviously.
>
> > The actual html from the page is as follows:
> > href="links.html">
> > width="180">
>
> > Is it possible for anyone to correct the above html because I don't
> > understand it?
>
>
> width="180" alt="Links">
>
> The actual value of the "alt" attribute depends on the nature and
> purpose of the image, but presuming that the image is a navigation
> button that says "Links", then "Links" would be the sensible value for
> it.
Perhaps a working example will also help. Go to the page
http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/ . Note the image at the bottom and
the alt that goes with it. Click ENTER to go to the next page with
links buttons and see how I wrote the alt for the buttons. Next turn
off images. For example, for Firefox: tools tab > options > content >
uncheck load images automatically. Next go back to the url I gave. The
images at the bottom of the page are gone and are replaced by the alt
text. Then click ENTER to go to the next page. Note that the names of
the link buttons as given in the alt text are displayed. Also note
that these are underlined and now clicking the alt text for the link
buttons now replaces the images to go to a link. Also if you write
alt="", the W3C html validator is satisfied. This usually would not be
a good idea, but it might help in some special case, although I can
not think of a good reason for a blank alt text at the moment.
The entry page will have different images at the bottom when it is
reloaded. This is done with an external javascript to select from a
list of images at random. But some people turn off javascript. The
noscript code is for that case. People with script turned off get the
same image every time. Although this is not directly concerned with
the alt question, I mention it so you know what is going on when you
do not get the same image every time you enter the page.
Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
> Perhaps a working example will also help.
So why don't you give one?
> Go to the page http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/ . Note the image at the
> bottom and
> the alt that goes with it.
The alt text repeats the image caption. While that might be the least of
evils in some cases, it's hardly a working example of anything.
> Click ENTER to go to the next page
So you referred us to a pointless splash page. How about a working example
of something?
> with links buttons and see how I wrote the alt for the buttons.
They are idiotic. Metaphorically speaking. Apologies to idiots; they cannot
help being idiots, but you could stop writing idiotic alt texts.
"go button 1a" helps nobody. It's even more foolish than it looks like,
since it's a link, so its alt text is effectively the link text. How useful
do you expect such link texts to be?
You could simply change the questions themselves into links and leave out
the stupid buttons.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela"
> Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
>
> > Perhaps a working example will also help.
>
> So why don't you give one?
>
> > Go to the pagehttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/. Note the image at the
> > bottom and
> > the alt that goes with it.
>
> The alt text repeats the image caption. While that might be the least of
> evils in some cases, it's hardly a working example of anything.
>
> > Click ENTER to go to the next page
>
> So you referred us to a pointless splash page. How about a working example
> of something?
If you like pages that are mainly text, fine for you. However the
entry page gives a brief statement about what the site is about. Below
it cycles at random many pictures of great interest to lovers of fine
wine. Seeing pictures of some very rare wines such as 1978 Romanee-
Conti and DRC Montrachet, or the legendary true Tokaji Eszencia from
the 1800s is of interest to many who like fine wine. It attracts them
to read further by clicking the entry button. The net is now exploding
into multi media. Some like that, and some do not. I find a place for
it on a site such as this. I really care nothing about your opinion,
to which you are entitled.
> > with links buttons and see how I wrote the alt for the buttons.
> They are idiotic. Metaphorically speaking. Apologies to idiots; they cannot
> help being idiots, but you could stop writing idiotic alt texts.
I just laugh at your apparent attempted insults. Why should I care
what you think. I like buttons for a site such as this. I am hardly an
idiot, as I received a PhD in physical chemistry at only 24 and have
published in the area in top peer reviewed international scientific
journals.
> "go button 1a" helps nobody. It's even more foolish than it looks like,
> since it's a link, so its alt text is effectively the link text. How useful
> do you expect such link texts to be?
>
> You could simply change the questions themselves into links and leave out
> the stupid buttons.
I am quite aware of how to use a text link and would do so if I wanted
to. I need no instructions from you.
I have reached a time in life when I don't care much what others
think. No matter what you do, you can not please everyone all of the
time, I do what I think best. I am not at all upset. You should see
some of the difficult people I have had to deal with over the years -
journal referees, journal editors, and government bureaucrats, among
others. You soon have a fairly tough skin after dealing with some of
these. How about showing us some of your best web pages in the style
you like to write. You appear to have been writing pages for a long
time, and many, including myself, might benefit by viewing the code.
> --
> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
> I am hardly an idiot, as I received a PhD
I didn't say you're an idiot. I said your buttons are idiotic. Now you
confirm that you are worse than an idiot, since you even refuse to learn,
despite your ability to learn. An idiot is not responsible for his actions.
> I need no instructions from you.
The point is that you are not qualified to give others advice on web
authoring, specifically not "working examples" of alt texts, since your own
alt texts are idiotic and you keep them idiotic even after your mistake was
pointed out.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
On May 31, 6:48 pm, cwdjrxyz
> I agree that it will help if you study "alt" in detail. Within your
> img tag you might have alt="big black dog" if your image is a picture
> of a black dog.
You might, but it is unlikely to be a suitable alternative for the
image. More likely it is a decorative image (in which case alt="" is
suitable) or it is conveying a message (alt="Benny is a happy dog who
likes to play fetch").
--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
On Jun 1, 8:47 am, cwdjrxyz
> On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela"
>
>
>
>
>
> > Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
>
> > > Perhaps a working example will also help.
>
> > So why don't you give one?
>
> > > Go to the pagehttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/. Note the image at the
> > > bottom and
> > > the alt that goes with it.
>
> > The alt text repeats the image caption. While that might be the least of
> > evils in some cases, it's hardly a working example of anything.
>
> > > Click ENTER to go to the next page
>
> > So you referred us to a pointless splash page. How about a working example
> > of something?
>
> If you like pages that are mainly text, fine for you. However the
> entry page gives a brief statement about what the site is about. Below
> it cycles at random many pictures of great interest to lovers of fine
> wine. Seeing pictures of some very rare wines such as 1978 Romanee-
> Conti and DRC Montrachet, or the legendary true Tokaji Eszencia from
> the 1800s is of interest to many who like fine wine. It attracts them
> to read further by clicking the entry button. The net is now exploding
> into multi media. Some like that, and some do not. I find a place for
> it on a site such as this. I really care nothing about your opinion,
> to which you are entitled.
>
> > > with links buttons and see how I wrote the alt for the buttons.
> > They are idiotic. Metaphorically speaking. Apologies to idiots; they cannot
> > help being idiots, but you could stop writing idiotic alt texts.
>
> I just laugh at your apparent attempted insults. Why should I care
> what you think. I like buttons for a site such as this. I am hardly an
> idiot, as I received a PhD in physical chemistry at only 24 and have
> published in the area in top peer reviewed international scientific
> journals.
>
> > "go button 1a" helps nobody. It's even more foolish than it looks like,
> > since it's a link, so its alt text is effectively the link text. How useful
> > do you expect such link texts to be?
>
> > You could simply change the questions themselves into links and leave out
> > the stupid buttons.
>
> I am quite aware of how to use a text link and would do so if I wanted
> to. I need no instructions from you.
>
> I have reached a time in life when I don't care much what others
> think. No matter what you do, you can not please everyone all of the
> time, I do what I think best. I am not at all upset. You should see
> some of the difficult people I have had to deal with over the years -
> journal referees, journal editors, and government bureaucrats, among
> others. You soon have a fairly tough skin after dealing with some of
> these. How about showing us some of your best web pages in the style
> you like to write. You appear to have been writing pages for a long
> time, and many, including myself, might benefit by viewing the code.
>
>
>
> > --
> > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am most grateful for all the comments and assistance I am receiving.
Firstly I should explain that, although I have constructed many
hundreds of web pages over the last 8 years, I am entirely self taught
and have utilised simple web authoring packages like Word, Frontpage,
Mozilla etc. I have a sparse knowledge of html but have relied on web
editors -- which I suppose is what the vast majority of html laymen
like myself utilise. Html validation is something I am trying to come
to grips with. I can now see the function of the ALT attribute -- but
it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
separate description (and that would be a very time consuming
procedure). I refer you to a simple website I am currently
constructing that has, at the moment, numerous validation errors and
has the button links that I referred to: www.pleaselookitup.com
It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
misunderstood the reasoning?
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:49:26 GMT Lsimmons5 scribed:
> It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
> be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
> the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
> misunderstood the reasoning?
There's black and white, and then there's gray. Your reasoning sounds
correct but may need latitude.
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
In article
<1180684042.924249.183490@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
cwdjrxyz
> On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela"
> > Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
>
> I am quite aware of how to use a text link and would do so if I wanted
> to. I need no instructions from you.
>
> I have reached a time in life when I don't care much what others
> think.
Not sure why Mr. Korpela went in so hard on you, I mean it is not
as if anyone can really stop others giving advice in good faith.
While your alt text is not ideal, it is not so bad for someone
who actually sees only the text. "go button 1a" next to "1a. I
want to know how much it's worth" would be _very much more_ than
useless. In other words it could be quite helpful.
But, quite frankly, if you had a dying wish and said to me,
"dorayme, please change nothing on my site but do put in the alt
texts which I had no time to make, I would make it, to keep with
the example, alt="Find out". And ditto with every single one, all
by Find and replace in one fell swoop. of course, it would be
wrong because almost any beings's alt text is criticised by
someone else on this planet. It is either wrong in principle or
wrong in substance or wrong by simply not needing to exist
because the conditions of its existence are unnecessary.
JK's point about simply making the text links is one that stands
out as the obvious thing to do on simple aesthetic grounds: less
is more. It is likely that this "over egging the pudding" design
decision lays behind his irritability.
I recall you often making informative contributions.
How am I going? I am doing the Dale Carnegie course in Conflict
Management and am just practising here. It is part of my
assignment for first term.
--
dorayme
Scripsit Lsimmons5:
> On Jun 1, 8:47 am, cwdjrxyz
You should quote (or paraphrase) only the relevant part of the message that
you are commenting on. In this case, that message contained nothing
relevant, so perhaps you should have sent a followup to some other message.
> I can now see the function of the ALT attribute -- but
> it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
> pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
> separate description (and that would be a very time consuming
> procedure).
They need different alt texts of course, since they contain (or at least
should) contain different texts in image format or otherwise different
symbols.
> www.pleaselookitup.com
It's hardly so time-consuming to type in the texts that you now have in the
images only. There's some extra work _now_, since it was not handled when
the images were created (and someone typed in the texts in the first place).
But the real culprit is the use of images for linking. If you used text
links, you would have typed in the text once, and that's it.
In fact, you could still upgrade to text links. The somewhat button-like
images that you use for linking could probably be quite reasonably
implemented as styled text links so that the appearance is similar if not
better. This would also solve the legibility problem - even though I can
_see_ the images, they are considerably more difficult to read than normal
text, and links _should_ be _easier_.
> It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
> be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
> the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
> misunderstood the reasoning?
There's no "W3C approval". The W3C does not have any approval process for
web pages (except perhaps its internal quality control for its own pages,
and that control must be, er, not quite perfect). The HTML syntax rules make
the alt attribute mandatory, but they don't say anything meaningful about
its value. On the other hand, the prose of HTML specs and the W3C WAI
recommendations specify the meaning of alt attributes, so you would not
conform to W3C specifications (only the formalized syntax) if you throw in
alt attributes with useless or worse than useless values.
Besides, what would you need "W3C approval" for? But you need accessibility
(including useful alt attributes) in order to be accessible to all people.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
cwdjrxyz wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2:02 am, "Jukka K. Korpela"
>> Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
>>
>> > Go to the pagehttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/. Note the image at the
>> > bottom
>>
>> The alt text repeats the image caption.
>
> it cycles at random many pictures of great interest to lovers of fine
> wine.
> I really care nothing about your opinion
You have missed the point. The problem is the alt text on the photo
repeats the caption, which is incorrect. Read it out loud with images
turned off and actually *listen* to it. Blank alt text would be better
than duplicating the caption, but I'm sure you can find something more
meaningful in context. Are they rare wines? If so, you can say so.
The alt text on the gold bars down the side of the page is incorrect,
too. "gold frame side" is meaningless in any context. This should
definitely be blank instead.
--
Berg
On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bergamot
> You have missed the point. The problem is the alt text on the photo
> repeats the caption, which is incorrect. Read it out loud with images
> turned off and actually *listen* to it. Blank alt text would be better
> than duplicating the caption, but I'm sure you can find something more
> meaningful in context. Are they rare wines? If so, you can say so.
Yeah... that "duplicating the caption" issue is what I refer to as the
"Double Double Vision Vision problem", where a text-mode browser or
screen reader would see a repetition of the same content twice.
Jukka could have been a bit more tactful in making his (valid) points,
though.
--
Dan
On Jun 1, 4:49 am, Lsimmons5
> to grips with. I can now see the function of the ALT attribute -- but
> it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
> pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
> separate description (and that would be a very time consuming
> procedure). I refer you to a simple website I am currently
> constructing that has, at the moment, numerous validation errors and
> has the button links that I referred to:www.pleaselookitup.com
Navigation-link buttons are among the things where it's most important
to have proper ALT attributes, but also among the easiest to do;
simply use ALT text that corresponds to the text on the button. If
the button says "HOME", use alt="HOME" on it. The idea is that the
image can be replaced with the text (as on a text-only browser, or an
audio screen reader) and provide the same navigation information.
--
Dan
Scripsit Dan:
> If the button says "HOME", use alt="HOME" on it.
Rather, alt="home". There's no reason to SHOUT in the alt text, even if you
SHOUT in the text in an image. It can make a difference especially in speech
synthesis: all-caps text might sometimes be taken as an abbreviation
(initialism) and spelled out letter by letter.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
In article
<1180687766.468491.79000@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Lsimmons5
> it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
> pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
> separate description
No, this is not correct in all circumstances. If, whether for
good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
image. I remind you that in his example, the go buttons were just
devices that took you to answers to questions that were already
displayed in text on their left. Quite appropriate would be
something like "Find out" or "Find out the answer to the
question" or even, over verbosely, but with sure footedness,
"Click to see the answer to the question on your left" - (don't
even think of _really_ putting the latter!).
There is no short "alt text for dummies" book, no really simple
algorithm that will tell you what to say in alt text, it depends
on the context. To construct alt text requires you to be someone
who understands a little bit about other people, to be someone
with a little imagination and understanding about blind people,
about people with images turned off, about failure of images to
be delivered from servers and so on and to make alternative
provision for communication to cover such events in particular
contexts. Not someone who buries his head in rule books and
standards manuals alone.
Simply imagine how you can help someone who does not see the
image at all. You need to do something to help them in your
communications. If the picture is not a filler or a part of the
decoration especially, you need to convey something to replace
it, either its content or function.
As for what is or is not a decoration, this is not a question
that has a definite answer in all circumstances. You can put in
alt text for these if you wish, if only to explicitly convey that
it is merely part of the page's pretty look and therefore safely
to be ignored. But even here, the rule book nerds will get it
woodenly wrong. Some people who do not see the decorative parts
might nevertheless be interested from time to time (unlikely but
this kind of thing does happen) in decoration. A pure mission to
communicate all would demand you provide for even such unlikely
interest. But no one would blame you if you did not.. I will make
a comment about alt="" below
> It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
> be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
> the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
> misunderstood the reasoning?
About this business of alt="" for some situations. You have a
choice. You can do this if there is a clause in your contract to
supply validated source. Or if you simply cannot bear the sight
of being rebuffed by a report from W3C. You can cheat and fudge
to get over this line if you want. And you better like the sight
of source strewn with dummy alts more than you like strictly
unvalidated code. Yes, you guessed it, you can also forget all
about putting in all that alt="" and what is the worst thing that
can happen as a result of just this? Nothing really of any
consequence. The real thing to be worried about is the true value
of those pics that cause this little dilemma for the neurotic
purist.
--
dorayme
On Jun 1, 11:33 pm, dorayme
> In article
> <1180687766.468491.79...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Lsimmons5
> > it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
> > pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
> > separate description
>
> No, this is not correct in all circumstances. If, whether for
> good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
> as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
> have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
> image. I remind you that in his example, the go buttons were just
> devices that took you to answers to questions that were already
> displayed in text on their left. Quite appropriate would be
> something like "Find out" or "Find out the answer to the
> question" or even, over verbosely, but with sure footedness,
> "Click to see the answer to the question on your left" - (don't
> even think of _really_ putting the latter!).
>
> There is no short "alt text for dummies" book, no really simple
> algorithm that will tell you what to say in alt text, it depends
> on the context. To construct alt text requires you to be someone
> who understands a little bit about other people, to be someone
> with a little imagination and understanding about blind people,
> about people with images turned off, about failure of images to
> be delivered from servers and so on and to make alternative
> provision for communication to cover such events in particular
> contexts. Not someone who buries his head in rule books and
> standards manuals alone.
>
> Simply imagine how you can help someone who does not see the
> image at all. You need to do something to help them in your
> communications. If the picture is not a filler or a part of the
> decoration especially, you need to convey something to replace
> it, either its content or function.
>
> As for what is or is not a decoration, this is not a question
> that has a definite answer in all circumstances. You can put in
> alt text for these if you wish, if only to explicitly convey that
> it is merely part of the page's pretty look and therefore safely
> to be ignored. But even here, the rule book nerds will get it
> woodenly wrong. Some people who do not see the decorative parts
> might nevertheless be interested from time to time (unlikely but
> this kind of thing does happen) in decoration. A pure mission to
> communicate all would demand you provide for even such unlikely
> interest. But no one would blame you if you did not.. I will make
> a comment about alt="" below
>
> > It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can still
> > be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so what is
> > the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
> > misunderstood the reasoning?
>
> About this business of alt="" for some situations. You have a
> choice. You can do this if there is a clause in your contract to
> supply validated source. Or if you simply cannot bear the sight
> of being rebuffed by a report from W3C. You can cheat and fudge
> to get over this line if you want. And you better like the sight
> of source strewn with dummy alts more than you like strictly
> unvalidated code. Yes, you guessed it, you can also forget all
> about putting in all that alt="" and what is the worst thing that
> can happen as a result of just this? Nothing really of any
> consequence. The real thing to be worried about is the true value
> of those pics that cause this little dilemma for the neurotic
> purist.
Just a little background. The site for which I gave the url belongs to
alt.food.wine. It took about a year to develop. This is an
international group. Different people from the US, France, Australia,
New Zealand, etc. agreed to write some of the sections. Then a
professor at a US university with an interest in wine, edited
everything. This was posted, there often was much discussion, and
changes were made. Once a text version of each section was finalized,
it was added to the FAQ posted, and it soon became apparent that this
was becoming a very long document indeed. Since I had some spare web
space, I offered to put up a domain for the FAQ. After looking at the
length of sections, it soon became apparent that putting everything on
the same page would result in very slow loading on slow dialup, and
some of the users of the group around the world only have slow dialup.
Thus, to take care of this problem, I put each section on a single
page. One section was so long that I ended up in having sections 3a
and 3b. I did no writing on this site, other than what was needed to
put the basic text on web pages. As the site developed, it was
discussed by the group, and some changes in colors, spacings, fonts,
etc. were made. If you read some of the sections in detail, you will
find that some of them have links within them. For these "secondary"
links, I used text links. For the primary section links, I used the
buttons that are very easy to see. I checked the site on many browsers
that I do not have, including a text browser. There were free sites in
Germany and the UK that allowed me to do this. I also checked the site
on non-official validators for the disabled. For instance, I found
some of my links were too close together for the blind and moved them
a bit. These "validators" are also fussy that alt be used for
everything. I also checked the pages on Opera set for a very small
screen size that approaches that of some small devices. The pages
still could be read well enough.
In article
<1180769894.441792.150900@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
cwdjrxyz
> On Jun 1, 11:33 pm, dorayme
> > In article
> > <1180687766.468491.79...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Lsimmons5
> > > it seems to me that if you have a row of buttons linking to different
> > > pages on a website, then every button and gif/jpeg should have its own
> > > separate description
> >
> > No, this is not correct in all circumstances. If, whether for
> > good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
> > as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
> > have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
> > image. I remind you that in his example, ...
>
> Just a little background.
You will realise, I hope, that I was not meaning in my post to in
any way criticise you, just to discuss and make some general
remarks about alt text. Your example was handy to make one
particular point about alt text and that is that there is no
formula for doing them and general guidelines almost always have
exceptions.
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
>
> If, whether for
> good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
> as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
> have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
> image.
No, not really. Try that using a browser that can navigate just to
links. Opera maintains a separate link list, as do many screen readers.
If the alt text is all the same, it is useless out of context. You might
as well just say "click here".
--
Berg
In article <5cd7snF31176dU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot
> dorayme wrote:
> >
> > If, whether for
> > good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
> > as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
> > have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
> > image.
>
> No, not really. Try that using a browser that can navigate just to
> links. Opera maintains a separate link list, as do many screen readers.
> If the alt text is all the same, it is useless out of context. You might
> as well just say "click here".
OK. I was not that aware of the likely use of pages that just
show links in a context such as that particular page. Had I been,
I would not have said "entirely appropriate". I can't quite think
why anyone would just go to a page of links in the example I was
covering, but there may be practical reasons? It is a nice point
nevertheless, so thanks.
--
dorayme
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed cwdjrxyz
writing in news:1180658489.074166.206810@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> Also if you write
> alt="", the W3C html validator is satisfied. This usually would not be
> a good idea, but it might help in some special case, although I can
> not think of a good reason for a blank alt text at the moment.
>
You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
example:
Company
Name
or
src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company Name
vs
height="100" width="100"> This picture of our Maine Coon, Rolo, was taken
when we first got her. Rolo loves to sit at the window and wait for the
birds, then she "sings" to them.
Notice 1 and 2 have no alt text because they are for decoration. The
second example uses the title attribute to give the user a hint to the
destination. The third example DOES use have alt text because it is NOT
purely for decoration.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
In article
Adrienne Boswell
> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
> example:
>
> Company
> Name
You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
--
dorayme
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:43:04 GMT Adrienne Boswell scribed:
> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
> example:
>
>
Company
> height="100" width="100"> This picture of our Maine Coon, Rolo, was
> taken when we first got her. Rolo loves to sit at the window and wait
> for the birds, then she "sings" to them.
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Adrienne Boswell
>
>> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration.
>>
>
> You can also leave it out altogether.
You can leave any attribute out, but that doesn't make it a good practice.
> What are the bad
> consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
Look at said page in Lynx or any graphical browser with image loading
disabled and see for yourself.
--
Berg
Scripsit dorayme:
> If, whether for
> good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
> as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
> have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
> image.
No, it is not. It violates the basic principle that different links require
different link texts. There are serious usability and accessibility reasons
to this principle. When an image is a link, the alt text acts as the link
text in essential ways.
Try using a speech browser in "links mode", and you'll see. Er... I mean
you'll understand.
> I remind you that in his example, the go buttons were just
> devices that took you to answers to questions that were already
> displayed in text on their left.
The _links_ still have the same texts, and that's what matters to programs
that work on links. The "go buttons" are just pointless and childish. That's
why there's no reasonable way to write alt texts for them.
> There is no short "alt text for dummies" book,
There's an "alt text for all" page,
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html
which begins with a short summary that helps you write good alt texts in
most cases, and the rest helps with more complicated cases.
>> It would appear from the comments received that W3C approval can
>> still be obtained by simply choosing a non-descriptive ALT tag -- so
>> what is the value of W3C approval in this instance? Or have I totally
>> misunderstood the reasoning?
>
> About this business of alt="" for some situations.
To me, the question seems to be whether one could write alt="" just as a
method of getting away with validation, with no regard to the meaning and
purpose of the image. The correct answer is that it would naturally satisfy
validity requirement and would be either undescribably stupid or
disgustingly dishonest.
> You can do this if there is a clause in your contract to
> supply validated source.
Cheating is possible. You would be cheating if you did something wrong to
satisfy the letter but not the purpose and intended meaning of a clause in a
contract.
> Or if you simply cannot bear the sight
> of being rebuffed by a report from W3C. You can cheat and fudge
> to get over this line if you want.
That would fall into the undescribably stupid category. It's like cheating
when playing solitaire.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
In article
"Jukka K. Korpela"
> Scripsit dorayme:
>
> > If, whether for
> > good reasons or bad, you have buttons that go to different pages
> > as exampled in cwdjrxyz's page, it is entirely appropriate to
> > have exactly the same alt text to help the user who sees no
> > image.
>
> No, it is not. It violates the basic principle that different links require
> different link texts. There are serious usability and accessibility reasons
> to this principle. When an image is a link, the alt text acts as the link
> text in essential ways.
>
First, it was suggested previously to me, at least by
implication, that there is some likelihood that someone would be
usefully looking at a list of links on a page divorced from the
context of that page. I agreed that to cover this unlikely
possibility I should not have used the words "entirely
appropriate". The words should have been weakened to "appropriate
enough". If I am beaten back further by further argument, I will
be happy enough because of its educative value.
I do not mean to be provocative when I say that there could be
situations where I would strengthen the words, not weaken them.
For example in a playful site that has prizes for guessing
answers and is so constructed as to mislead people for playful
reasons. Or even an educative site (either about html or not)
where the student is required to be tested in various ways.
The basic principle that you are upholding is a fine thing in the
way many principles in any field are. But they are not sacred
objects. They have a purpose. When that purpose is inappropriate,
it is often small mindedness to follow the rule. Yes, I do
understand that sometimes it is just simpler not to have to think
about things and just apply a useful principle everywhere to save
time and energy. But, while this is fine for oneself, it is
entirely a different matter when getting up to criticise someone
else for not following the rule in every circumstance.
I have always respected the way you often show how you see the
raison d¹être for the rules in web design (in good
communication). And I would bet quids that you would not stoop to
use communication standards purely for fashion or to seem correct.
In the particular page which obviously so infuriated you, I do
believe that the very existence of those buttons were the crime
for usability, adding unnecessary things. As you say in your
post:
> > The "go buttons" are just pointless and childish.
> > That's why there's no reasonable way to write alt texts
> > for them."
I was suggesting quite "good enough" in the circumstances. I was
also trying to be a bit nice to poor old cwdjrxyz as he was being
kicked in the gutter. I was passing by and even martians have
hearts you know!
I am not altogether sure of how to take the rest of your post,
whether they are meant in criticism or endorsement or
amplification? I saw little with which I would disagree and
indeed, they express views I have written on.
--
dorayme
In article <5cdp3iF30j253U1@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > Adrienne Boswell
> >
> >> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration.
> >>
> >
> > You can also leave it out altogether.
>
> You can leave any attribute out, but that doesn't make it a good practice.
>
It was not a general mindless practice I was talking about. I was
not saying its ok to leave out alt attributes out full stop. If
you are saying that it is good practice to use alt="", you have
given no argument at all.
> > What are the bad
> > consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
>
> Look at said page in Lynx or any graphical browser with image loading
> disabled and see for yourself.
This is what I would see if my suggestion were implemented:
1a. I want to know how much it's worth _Find out_
1b. I want to know whether it's OK to drink _Find out_
1c. Will it still taste good? _Find out_
And this is quite satisfactory given the unwise insistence on the
buttons in the first place.
Please do not make the point again about a pure links page. I
have replied about that and the above is not to be confused with
that issue.
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article <5cdp3iF30j253U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Bergamot
>> dorayme wrote:
>> > In article
>> > Adrienne Boswell
>> >
>> >> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You can also leave it out altogether.
>
> I was
> not saying its ok to leave out alt attributes out full stop.
Huh? It looks to me that is exactly what you said:
>> > You can also leave it out altogether.
Leaving alt out and using blank alt are 2 very different things.
>> > What are the bad
>> > consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
>>
>> Look at said page in Lynx or any graphical browser with image loading
>> disabled and see for yourself.
>
> This is what I would see if my suggestion were implemented:
Your suggestion of using the same alt text on every link is a poor one,
but I was referring to leaving alt out altogether.
> Please do not make the point again about a pure links page.
Just because it is something you don't use yourself doesn't mean nobody
else has a reason to. If it weren't a useful feature for some percent of
users, browser makers wouldn't bother to implement it. Regardless, link
text needs to be meaningful out of context. Using the same alt text on
every link is not meaningful.
> I
> have replied about that and the above is not to be confused with
> that issue.
You are the one who is confused about alt text. You should stop giving
advice on the subject until you learn more about it.
--
Berg
In article <5cenb9F30be60U1@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot
> dorayme wrote:
> > I was
> > not saying its ok to leave out alt attributes out full stop.
>
> Huh? It looks to me that is exactly what you said:
Please read more closely what I said and try to operate on the
principle of a charitable interpretation. If you attend to what I
have been saying you will not be able to draw the conclusion that
I think it is ok to leave out alt text whenever one feels like
it.
> >> > You can also leave it out altogether.
>
> Leaving alt out and using blank alt are 2 very different things.
>
Of course they are 2 different things. The difference is great in
some cases, not very great in others and this is what you are
missing.
> >> > What are the bad
> >> > consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
> >>
> >> Look at said page in Lynx or any graphical browser with image loading
> >> disabled and see for yourself.
> >
> > This is what I would see if my suggestion were implemented:
>
> Your suggestion of using the same alt text on every link is a poor one,
>
It is poor because of someone wanting to look at that particular
page's links out of context? But you must reflect on whether that
would that be an intelligent thing to do given the nature of that
page. It simply would not be. If someone by accident came across
the links on their own, it would not principally be the naming of
the alt text that caused them to be miffed but rather the fact
that the buttons were an unnecessary addition to the questions
and need to be seen with the questions. I do not defend the
design. If the author had gone to the trouble of putting alt text
in that would have been really meaningful, then he would have
included the question in the button too in something like, "the
answer to the question "blah blah". And if he had done this, he
would not have bothered to so design the question and answer in
the first place. I stand by my view that it was in this
particular case in the circumstances fairly appropriate to make
the alt text all the same along the lines I suggested.
> but I was referring to leaving alt out altogether.
And leaving out alt text for some decorative and other non
content objects is something I wish to look into more closely.
Suggest a page where there are a lot of these things and I will
try to look at it with images turned off and think about the
difference between "" and no alt at all.
> > Please do not make the point again about a pure links page.
>
> Just because it is something you don't use yourself doesn't mean nobody
> else has a reason to.
No, you have this wrong. It was not because of this at all.
> If it weren't a useful feature for some percent of
> users, browser makers wouldn't bother to implement it.
It can be a useful feature. But in the context of the page in
question, the big trouble was elsewhere. My alt text suggestion
did not make things worse for everyone. On the whole it made
things better.
> Regardless, link
> text needs to be meaningful out of context. Using the same alt text on
> every link is not meaningful.
>
This is simply not true. You are failing to imagine all manner of
things.
> > I
> > have replied about that and the above is not to be confused with
> > that issue.
>
> You are the one who is confused about alt text. You should stop giving
> advice on the subject until you learn more about it.
I would have thought this would be beneath you but obviously it
is not. I was separating two issues and you took an opportunity
to insult me. Your paraphrase of my advice would be very
different to my advice. It is quite extraordinary for you to
suppose this is some sort of help desk and I really think I am
giving authoritative advice. I say things because I am thinking
about them and hope for people to discuss the ideas. Not insult
me for speaking in good faith.
--
dorayme
On 2007-06-03, Bergamot
> dorayme wrote:
[...]
>> Please do not make the point again about a pure links page.
>
> Just because it is something you don't use yourself doesn't mean nobody
> else has a reason to. If it weren't a useful feature for some percent of
> users, browser makers wouldn't bother to implement it.
Yes but you can't expect every page to work in every accessibility
feature of every browser. There's nothing in the HTML spec I can see
about anything like Opera's View Links feature. It makes no sense on a
www page to target specific boxes of tricks in particular browsers.
> Regardless, link text needs to be meaningful out of context. Using the
> same alt text on every link is not meaningful.
But the buttons all look the same. Why should people who don't see the
images get better information than those who do?
This alt text is on the not on the link. It's not "link text", but
"img text". Therefore if there's a problem here it's surely the fact
that the buttons are all the same? If they are all the same, their alt
text might as well be too.
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-06-03, Bergamot
>> dorayme wrote:
> [...]
>>> Please do not make the point again about a pure links page.
>>
>> Just because it is something you don't use yourself doesn't mean nobody
>> else has a reason to. If it weren't a useful feature for some percent of
>> users, browser makers wouldn't bother to implement it.
>
> Yes but you can't expect every page to work in every accessibility
> feature of every browser. There's nothing in the HTML spec I can see
> about anything like Opera's View Links feature. It makes no sense on a
> www page to target specific boxes of tricks in particular browsers.
It's not really about targeting specific browsers. I used Opera as an
example because it's something you can easily check into yourself. The
same kind of feature exists in most screen readers, and no doubt other
browsers or browser extensions, too.
>> Regardless, link text needs to be meaningful out of context. Using the
>> same alt text on every link is not meaningful.
>
> But the buttons all look the same.
That's not relevant. The alt text for an individual button is.
> This alt text is on the not on the link. It's not "link text", but
> "img text".
You mention the W3C. They don't have to have specs for everything, but
there is a reference to this general concept in the WCAG 2.0 draft (soon
to be a recommendation):
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview. html#H30
"When an image is the only content of a link, the text alternative for
the image describes the unique function of the link."
Note "unique function". "Go" is not unique when used multiple times for
different link destinations.
> Therefore if there's a problem here it's surely the fact
> that the buttons are all the same?
Yes, that is the first problem. It would have been better overall if the
author used the question for the link instead of that 'go' button, but
the problem can be overcome with better alt text.
--
Berg
In article
Adrienne Boswell
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed cwdjrxyz
> writing in news:1180658489.074166.206810@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Also if you write
> > alt="", the W3C html validator is satisfied. This usually would not be
> > a good idea, but it might help in some special case, although I can
> > not think of a good reason for a blank alt text at the moment.
> >
>
> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
> example:
>
> Company
> Name
>
> or
>
>
> src="companylogo.png" alt="" height="100" width="200">Company Name
>
>
When
becomes law (ferreted out by Bergamot), this will not be right
for the latter. Severe penalties will apply for not filling out
between the "s
Personally I like the title idea and have used it myself;
sometimes, even for text links as an additional (optional) help.
I guess it does make sense to also put in replacement text in the
alt for those situations where the title does not work or is too
quick in appearance or not available for other reasons (mouseless
browsing?)
This is so in general. But the law is still not a little god and
there are exceptional circumstances. When the level of hysteria
about this matter gets to fever pitch and people are demanding to
see the exceptions and they put up some money, that is when I
deliver and collect.
--
dorayme
On 2007-06-02, dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Adrienne Boswell
>
>> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
>> example:
>>
>> Company
>> Name
>
> You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
> consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
You've obviously never looked at such a page in a text browser such
as Lynx.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
9656FC.02542803062007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
> In article
> Adrienne Boswell
>
>> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
>> example:
>>
>> Company
>> Name
>
> You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
> consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
>
If you leave out the alt attribute in Opera, for example, it creates an
image placeholder that says Image, if you use alt="", it does not. You
would be surprised how many slice and dice sites I've been to that have
Image on them 20 times or more. This is especially true if you turn
images off (and I sometimes do even though I have broadband).
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
On Jun 3, 9:05 pm, Adrienne Boswell
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
>
> 9656FC.02542803062...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
>
> > In article
> > Adrienne Boswell
>
> >> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
> >> example:
>
> >> Company
> >> Name
>
> > You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
> > consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
>
> If you leave out the alt attribute in Opera, for example, it creates an
> image placeholder that says Image, if you use alt="", it does not. You
> would be surprised how many slice and dice sites I've been to that have
> Image on them 20 times or more. This is especially true if you turn
> images off (and I sometimes do even though I have broadband).
Since the alt text is often needed by the disabled, it sometimes pays
to include it for absolutely all images, even those serving for
nonessential pure decoration, even if using alt="" many be quite legal
formally. In the past disabled people where grateful for any help they
might get, because so often they got none. However, at least in the
US, as the years have passed, some disabled activists have become very
vocal about their rights. There attitude might be to label all images
used with alt and let them decide if they are interested or not. Or,
what gives you the right to decide for them only what you think they
should want to read about - after all you likely do not have their
disability. A few months ago a woman, who appeared very well
qualified, was selected to head the leading university for deaf people
in the US. She apparently could use and understand sign language very
well. However she was not deaf. Many of the students did not think a
non-deaf person could be qualified, no matter what other
qualifications were. There were large student demonstrations. In the
end someone else was given the job. I repeat this story here not to
argue the merits of it pro or con. I am just pointing out that if you
are writing a web site likely to be used by large numbers of disabled,
it is best not to assume that they do not need something.
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed cwdjrxyz
writing in news:1180929504.448376.215870@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> width="200">Company Name
>>
>> > You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
>> > consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
>>
>> If you leave out the alt attribute in Opera, for example, it creates
>> an image placeholder that says Image, if you use alt="", it does not.
>> You would be surprised how many slice and dice sites I've been to
>> that have Image on them 20 times or more. This is especially true if
>> you turn images off (and I sometimes do even though I have
>> broadband).
>
> Since the alt text is often needed by the disabled, it sometimes pays
> to include it for absolutely all images, even those serving for
> nonessential pure decoration, even if using alt="" many be quite legal
> formally.
Actually, with the advent of CSS and separation of presentation from
content, any images would have to have some semantic meaning, and
therefore, would need alt text.
Even:
src="http://images.fedex.com/images/globalhome/globalhome_fe dex_corp_logo
..gif" alt="Purple letters spelling Fed, followed by white letters
spelling Ex where the lower portion of the E becomes the tail of a right
pointing arrow" width="152" height="38">
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
In article
Adrienne Boswell
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
>
> 9656FC.02542803062007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
>
> > In article
> > Adrienne Boswell
> >
> >> You leave the alt attribute blank if the image is for decoration. For
> >> example:
> >>
> >> Company
> >> Name
> >
> > You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
> > consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
> >
>
> If you leave out the alt attribute in Opera, for example, it creates an
> image placeholder that says Image, if you use alt="", it does not. You
> would be surprised how many slice and dice sites I've been to that have
> Image on them 20 times or more. This is especially true if you turn
> images off (and I sometimes do even though I have broadband).
Just for now, I cannot say too much about alt text. My doctor has
forbidden it and has given me special pills to cope. "AltText
medication" it says on the bottle label, take two if you begin to
think about alt text in HTML. It is a painful subject and I have
the theory that no matter what anyone says, no matter what their
status, they will be not quite right in at least some respects.
It is possibly the most vexing subject in any field ever to have
been aired.
I will just say 3 things:
1. For now, I am thinking that the alt attribute is sadly lacking
in implementation on browsers. One has to find workarounds (sure,
there are plenty, that is not a puzzle) if the text is long and
the space reserved for the pic none too wide. But one should not
have to - at the very least one should be able to style the alt
text to wrap. One can make it bigger and smaller and fancy fonted
and coloured and all sorts of things. But get it to wrap inside a
dimensioned space reserved for a pic that is not loaded (either
deliberately by the user or due to a mistake beyond the user's
control) and it seems impossible. It is impossible, yes? I think
it would be nice.
2. The whole subject of decoration is a difficult one. I tend to
no longer use such things and so perhaps I do not think about it
all so clearly (I use bg images now and then). But there are a
number of different ways to go. In my opinion, if someone is
going to use a mass of spacers and fiddly decorative things, yes,
you are likely to be right that alt="" is best for many users
with images turned off for the reasons that "blank text" looks
cleaner, it acts like 'whiteout', it is something non existent
but useful.
3. If the picture is decorative in a way, but nevertheless
_interesting_, not some trivial thing, not a spacer, alt text
_should_ be a way to provide for someone not seeing the picture
to get some sense of it. See the Australian film "Proof" for the
idea, it is about a blind photographer and he gets folk to
describe the pics he takes (and, if i recall, gets to pick up
nice ladies too (photographers are quite notorious you know...).
It is not at all a silly thing. Do screen readers read _long_ alt
texts? Again I know there are other ways to deliver text about a
picture. But our subject is alt text, not something else.
4. Finally, at
1, 5 and 7 behave one way; 2, 3, 6 and 8 another way and 4 yet
another under images turned off deliberately in Opera. While
under images on, 1, 2 and 6 behave one way; 3 another, 4 another,
7 another and 8 yet another. I am not that puzzled about these
differences. I am trying to come to terms with them.
While under Firefox, 1, 5 and 7 behave one way; 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8
behave another.
As for the links (9 to 16, am too tired now to describe). In iCab
it is all a bit different again.
Perhaps this table will be useful to someone or other who wants
to check how different browsers behave with alt text. Important
to distinguish between a deliberate turning off of images from
them merely failing to appear. I have "misnamed" some files to
mimic the latter.
Adrienne, must rush now and take 2 altText tablets immediately.
--
dorayme
In article
dorayme
> I will just say 3 things:
>
OK, 4 things...
--
dorayme
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:58:24 GMT cwdjrxyz scribed:
> A few months ago a woman, who appeared very well
> qualified, was selected to head the leading university for deaf people
> in the US. She apparently could use and understand sign language very
> well. However she was not deaf. Many of the students did not think a
> non-deaf person could be qualified, no matter what other
> qualifications were. There were large student demonstrations. In the
> end someone else was given the job. I repeat this story here not to
> argue the merits of it pro or con. I am just pointing out that if you
> are writing a web site likely to be used by large numbers of disabled,
> it is best not to assume that they do not need something.
If that's the whole story...
their attitude is understandable. I certainly wouldn't want a deaf person
heading any university _I_ attended. Hell, how would the guy hear me when
I went in to complain about my grades?
(The interesting thing about reverse discrimination is it's still
discrimination. Those deaf people were wrong, dead wrong - all of them.
....If that's the whole story.)
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
In article
Neredbojias
> I certainly wouldn't want a deaf person
> heading any university _I_ attended. Hell, how would the guy hear me when
> I went in to complain about my grades?
>
Yeah, what a pity, all your loudness would be wasted on him? But
think positively, he would still understand you and be able to
spank you badly for your attitude, you then could get back to
your favourite subject: your lower parts.
--
dorayme
cwdjrxyz wrote:
>
> Since the alt text is often needed by the disabled, it sometimes pays
> to include it for absolutely all images, even those serving for
> nonessential pure decoration, even if using alt="" many be quite legal
What do you base this statement on? Do you have a reference from a
reputable agency that concurs?
--
Berg
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:58:24 -0700, cwdjrxyz
wrote:
>A few months ago a woman, who appeared very well
>qualified, was selected to head the leading university for deaf people
>in the US. She apparently could use and understand sign language very
>well. However she was not deaf. Many of the students did not think a
>non-deaf person could be qualified, no matter what other
>qualifications were. There were large student demonstrations. In the
>end someone else was given the job. I repeat this story here not to
>argue the merits of it pro or con.
While the events happened much as you say, I believe your timing is a
little out. Try a few *years*. The revolt at Gallaudet University
demanding a deaf president occured in 1988, if Wikipedia is correct, and
assuming that's the one you are talking about. That's a "few years" to
old folks like me.
There was a more recent one in 2006, but the issue was that the *deaf*
president does not sign well enough.
Other references seem to agree with Wikipedia. See for instance
http://pr.gallaudet.edu/dpn/index3.html
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:58:24 -0700, cwdjrxyz
> wrote:
>
>
>> A few months ago a woman, who appeared very well
>> qualified, was selected to head the leading university for deaf people
>> in the US. She apparently could use and understand sign language very
>> well. However she was not deaf. Many of the students did not think a
>> non-deaf person could be qualified, no matter what other
>> qualifications were. There were large student demonstrations. In the
>> end someone else was given the job. I repeat this story here not to
>> argue the merits of it pro or con.
>
> While the events happened much as you say, I believe your timing is a
> little out. Try a few *years*. The revolt at Gallaudet University
> demanding a deaf president occured in 1988, if Wikipedia is correct, and
> assuming that's the one you are talking about. That's a "few years" to
> old folks like me.
>
> There was a more recent one in 2006, but the issue was that the *deaf*
> president does not sign well enough.
>
> Other references seem to agree with Wikipedia. See for instance
> http://pr.gallaudet.edu/dpn/index3.html
>
>
>
>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194669,00.html
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:59:46 -0400, Ed Mullen
>Ed Seedhouse wrote:
>> While the events happened much as you say, I believe your timing is a
>> little out. Try a few *years*. The revolt at Gallaudet University
>> demanding a deaf president occured in 1988, if Wikipedia is correct, and
>> assuming that's the one you are talking about. That's a "few years" to
>> old folks like me.
>>
>> There was a more recent one in 2006, but the issue was that the *deaf*
>> president does not sign well enough.
>>
>> Other references seem to agree with Wikipedia. See for instance
>> http://pr.gallaudet.edu/dpn/index3.html
>>
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194669,00.html
As I read that story it doesn't say she is not deaf.
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:59:46 -0400, Ed Mullen
>
>> Ed Seedhouse wrote:
>>> While the events happened much as you say, I believe your timing is a
>>> little out. Try a few *years*. The revolt at Gallaudet University
>>> demanding a deaf president occured in 1988, if Wikipedia is correct, and
>>> assuming that's the one you are talking about. That's a "few years" to
>>> old folks like me.
>>>
>>> There was a more recent one in 2006, but the issue was that the *deaf*
>>> president does not sign well enough.
>>>
>>> Other references seem to agree with Wikipedia. See for instance
>>> http://pr.gallaudet.edu/dpn/index3.html
>>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194669,00.html
>
> As I read that story it doesn't say she is not deaf.
>
To quote from the article (with emphasis added):
Fernandes, who was selected by the board of trustees last week and is
scheduled to take office next January, *was born deaf* but grew up
speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23. Sign
language is the preferred way of communicating at 1,900-student Gallaudet.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
In article
"Chris F.A. Johnson"
> > You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
> > consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
>
> You've obviously never looked at such a page in a text browser such
> as Lynx.
Looks like I better revisit the business of decorative images and
alt="" for text only browsers. For odd reasons there has been
trouble on my machine installing and using Lynx. But I will
redouble efforts now and also want to actually hear various
screen readers, also something I have not had an easy run finding
to run on my set up.
I want to see and hear something like this url to gather data:
--
dorayme
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:03:32 -0400, Ed Mullen
>> As I read that story it doesn't say she is not deaf.
>To quote from the article (with emphasis added):
>Fernandes, who was selected by the board of trustees last week and is
>scheduled to take office next January, *was born deaf* but grew up
>speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23. Sign
>language is the preferred way of communicating at 1,900-student Gallaudet.
That's what I read, and it doesn't say she is not currently deaf. Lots
of deaf folks grow up speaking without ever regaining their hearing.
Some go deaf after learning to speak and still keep speadking. In fact
the complaint that she is not "deaf enough" implies strongly to me that
she is deaf to some extent at least.
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:03:32 -0400, Ed Mullen
>
>>> As I read that story it doesn't say she is not deaf.
>
>
>> To quote from the article (with emphasis added):
>
>> Fernandes, who was selected by the board of trustees last week and is
>> scheduled to take office next January, *was born deaf* but grew up
>> speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23. Sign
>> language is the preferred way of communicating at 1,900-student Gallaudet.
>
>
> That's what I read, and it doesn't say she is not currently deaf. Lots
> of deaf folks grow up speaking without ever regaining their hearing.
> Some go deaf after learning to speak and still keep speadking. In fact
> the complaint that she is not "deaf enough" implies strongly to me that
> she is deaf to some extent at least.
>
She was born deaf, she IS deaf. She didn't learn American Sign Language
until she was in her 20s. That fact, and charges by students of her
being "autocratic" led them to charge that she is "not deaf enough" and
to the protests and her ouster.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Ed Seedhouse wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:03:32 -0400, Ed Mullen
>>
>>>> As I read that story it doesn't say she is not deaf.
>>
>>
>>> To quote from the article (with emphasis added):
>>
>>> Fernandes, who was selected by the board of trustees last week and is
>>> scheduled to take office next January, *was born deaf* but grew up
>>> speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23.
>>> Sign language is the preferred way of communicating at 1,900-student
>>> Gallaudet.
>>
>>
>> That's what I read, and it doesn't say she is not currently deaf. Lots
>> of deaf folks grow up speaking without ever regaining their hearing.
>> Some go deaf after learning to speak and still keep speadking. In fact
>> the complaint that she is not "deaf enough" implies strongly to me that
>> she is deaf to some extent at least.
>>
>
> She was born deaf, she IS deaf. She didn't learn American Sign Language
> until she was in her 20s. That fact, and charges by students of her
> being "autocratic" led them to charge that she is "not deaf enough" and
> to the protests and her ouster.
>
And I forgot to mention that her husband and children can hear. More
ammunition for the "not deaf enough" charge.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
On Jun 4, 6:54 pm, dorayme
> In article
> "Chris F.A. Johnson"
>
> > > You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
> > > consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
>
> > You've obviously never looked at such a page in a text browser such
> > as Lynx.
>
> Looks like I better revisit the business of decorative images and
> alt="" for text only browsers. For odd reasons there has been
> trouble on my machine installing and using Lynx. But I will
> redouble efforts now and also want to actually hear various
> screen readers, also something I have not had an easy run finding
> to run on my set up.
If you go to http://www.totalvalidator.com/validator/ValidatorForm you
can get a screen shot of your page on several OS/browser combinations.
The Lynx 2.8 browser is available for both Windows and Linux OSs. It
apparently also is available for MAC users who will buy the pro
desktop tool. Perhaps they think those who own expensive Mac computers
can well afford to pay something :-). I have had fairly good results
with Opera's voice command/reader feature. It will even do sex
changes. You can convert a page written by a man to a woman's voice.
> I want to see and hear something like this url to gather data:
>
>
>
> --
> dorayme
On Jun 4, 10:40 pm, cwdjrxyz
> On Jun 4, 6:54 pm, dorayme
>
> > In article
> > "Chris F.A. Johnson"
>
> > > > You can also leave it out altogether. What are the bad
> > > > consequences beyond failing validation because of it?
>
> > > You've obviously never looked at such a page in a text browser such
> > > as Lynx.
>
> > Looks like I better revisit the business of decorative images and
> > alt="" for text only browsers. For odd reasons there has been
> > trouble on my machine installing and using Lynx. But I will
> > redouble efforts now and also want to actually hear various
> > screen readers, also something I have not had an easy run finding
> > to run on my set up.
>
> If you go tohttp://www.totalvalidator.com/validator/ValidatorFormyou
> can get a screen shot of your page on several OS/browser combinations.
> The Lynx 2.8 browser is available for both Windows and Linux OSs. It
> apparently also is available for MAC users who will buy the pro
> desktop tool. Perhaps they think those who own expensive Mac computers
> can well afford to pay something :-). I have had fairly good results
> with Opera's voice command/reader feature. It will even do sex
> changes. You can convert a page written by a man to a woman's voice.
Go to http://www.cwdjr.info/wine/williams.php to hear a recording of
Opera reading a portion of the FAQ of alt.food.wine. You will need a
Real player to hear this. The reader has a bit of trouble with some
non-English words, but usually not enough to cause serious trouble.
The sound is rather mechanical. This was recorded a few versions of
Opera back, so the sound may have been improved in recent versions.
Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
> Go to http://www.cwdjr.info/wine/williams.php to hear a recording of
> Opera reading a portion of the FAQ of alt.food.wine.
That should make it relatively clear that "go button" links (and hence
alt="go button" in img tags) are idiotic.
But as I mentioned, using a speech-based browsers in Links Reading mode is
even more eloquent.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:46:47 -0400, Ed Mullen
>Ed Seedhouse wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:03:32 -0400, Ed Mullen
>>
>>>> As I read that story it doesn't say she is not deaf.
>>> To quote from the article (with emphasis added):
>>> Fernandes, who was selected by the board of trustees last week and is
>>> scheduled to take office next January, *was born deaf* but grew up
>>> speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23. Sign
>>> language is the preferred way of communicating at 1,900-student Gallaudet.
>> That's what I read, and it doesn't say she is not currently deaf. Lots
>> of deaf folks grow up speaking without ever regaining their hearing.
>> Some go deaf after learning to speak and still keep speadking. In fact
>> the complaint that she is not "deaf enough" implies strongly to me that
>> she is deaf to some extent at least.
>She was born deaf, she IS deaf. She didn't learn American Sign Language
>until she was in her 20s. That fact, and charges by students of her
>being "autocratic" led them to charge that she is "not deaf enough" and
>to the protests and her ouster.
That's how it struck me when reading the story. That's why this
particular case is not, it seems to me, what the OP was referring to.
There was a "Student Revolt" at Gallaudet where the complaint was that
the new president was not deaf at all. The OP seemed to be conflating
the two, which was why I commented.
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:56:00 -0400, Ed Mullen
>> She was born deaf, she IS deaf. She didn't learn American Sign Language
>> until she was in her 20s. That fact, and charges by students of her
>> being "autocratic" led them to charge that she is "not deaf enough" and
>> to the protests and her ouster.
>>
>
>And I forgot to mention that her husband and children can hear. More
>ammunition for the "not deaf enough" charge.
I was making no comment, one way or the other, on the merits or demerits
of their case. I was merely pointing out that the reference to the
incident seemed to be conflating two or more incidents. As to whether
they are "right" or "wrong" to protest I have an opinion, but I am not
coming down on either side here and I decline to state it.
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:06:56 GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article
> Neredbojias
>
>> I certainly wouldn't want a deaf person
>> heading any university _I_ attended. Hell, how would the guy hear me
>> when I went in to complain about my grades?
>>
>
> Yeah, what a pity, all your loudness would be wasted on him? But
> think positively, he would still understand you and be able to
> spank you badly for your attitude, you then could get back to
> your favourite subject: your lower parts.
Hah hah hah! Okay, let's compromise. I'll try to be less reactive to
idiotic statements if you try to be less schizophrenic when you fail to
understand simple logic. Also, Sydney's a bit too close to America for
comfort; move to Perth.
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
In article
"Jukka K. Korpela"
> Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
>
> > Go to http://www.cwdjr.info/wine/williams.php to hear a recording of
> > Opera reading a portion of the FAQ of alt.food.wine.
>
> That should make it relatively clear that "go button" links (and hence
> alt="go button" in img tags) are idiotic.
>
> But as I mentioned, using a speech-based browsers in Links Reading mode is
> even more eloquent.
I am keeping a really low profile on all this stuff for the
moment. My Magnum Opus on alt text is still to come.
In the meantime, please, everyone, you will have to make do with:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html
(It's ok, you won't go far wrong if you study this link, it is
very good. For the finer points, please just wait and don't be
impatient. I am a little busy at the moment).
--
dorayme
In article
Ed Seedhouse
> As to whether
> they are "right" or "wrong" to protest I have an opinion, but I am not
> coming down on either side here and I decline to state it.
Why be so coy Ed? After all, you have come this far!
--
dorayme
In article
Neredbojias
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:06:56 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article
> > Neredbojias
> >
> >> I certainly wouldn't want a deaf person
> >> heading any university _I_ attended. Hell, how would the guy hear me
> >> when I went in to complain about my grades?
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, what a pity, all your loudness would be wasted on him? But
> > think positively, he would still understand you and be able to
> > spank you badly for your attitude, you then could get back to
> > your favourite subject: your lower parts.
>
> Hah hah hah! Okay, let's compromise. I'll try to be less reactive to
> idiotic statements if you try to be less schizophrenic when you fail to
> understand simple logic. Also, Sydney's a bit too close to America for
> comfort; move to Perth.
In _our_ little exchanges, what is the simple logic I fail to
understand? It is a big thing for me to move and you need to
explain this deal better.
--
dorayme
On Jun 5, 9:59 pm, dorayme
> In article
> "Jukka K. Korpela"
>
> > Scripsit cwdjrxyz:
>
> > > Go tohttp://www.cwdjr.info/wine/williams.phpto hear a recording of
> > > Opera reading a portion of the FAQ of alt.food.wine.
>
> > That should make it relatively clear that "go button" links (and hence
> > alt="go button" in img tags) are idiotic.
>
> > But as I mentioned, using a speech-based browsers in Links Reading mode is
> > even more eloquent.
>
> I am keeping a really low profile on all this stuff for the
> moment. My Magnum Opus on alt text is still to come.
>
> In the meantime, please, everyone, you will have to make do with:
>
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html
The code for the above page needs to be corrected, as it has 18
validation errors at the W3C validator. The CSS validates. Other pages
on the site from which this comes have a few validation errors also.
It may be more comforting to some if a page, giving personal opinions
about how codes should be written, uses correct code itself.
> (It's ok, you won't go far wrong if you study this link, it is
> very good. For the finer points, please just wait and don't be
> impatient. I am a little busy at the moment).
>
> --
> dorayme
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:08:14 GMT dorayme scribed:
>> > Neredbojias
>> >
>> >> I certainly wouldn't want a deaf person
>> >> heading any university _I_ attended. Hell, how would the guy hear me
>> >> when I went in to complain about my grades?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yeah, what a pity, all your loudness would be wasted on him? But
>> > think positively, he would still understand you and be able to
>> > spank you badly for your attitude, you then could get back to
>> > your favourite subject: your lower parts.
>>
>> Hah hah hah! Okay, let's compromise. I'll try to be less reactive to
>> idiotic statements if you try to be less schizophrenic when you fail to
>> understand simple logic. Also, Sydney's a bit too close to America for
>> comfort; move to Perth.
>
> In _our_ little exchanges, what is the simple logic I fail to
> understand?
That according to the rules of English grammar, _any_ word starting a
sentence is capitalized. It may not _look_ right to you and a few others
here, but that is subjective and irrelevant. "IMacs suck" is correct.
"iMacs are good" is wrong. This is true based on established standards and
not merely my opinion or preference. To top it all off, Toby Stinker
posted and opined in a manner aligned with the noodlism of your errancy. I
was hypertensively peeved.
> It is a big thing for me to move and you need to
> explain this deal better.
I didn't think you'd seriously consider it although Perth isn't as
provincial as it used to be.
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
In article
Neredbojias
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:08:14 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> > Neredbojias
> >> >
> >> >> I certainly wouldn't want a deaf person
> >> >> heading any university _I_ attended. Hell, how would the guy hear me
> >> >> when I went in to complain about my grades?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, what a pity, all your loudness would be wasted on him? But
> >> > think positively, he would still understand you and be able to
> >> > spank you badly for your attitude, you then could get back to
> >> > your favourite subject: your lower parts.
> >>
> >> Hah hah hah! Okay, let's compromise. I'll try to be less reactive to
> >> idiotic statements if you try to be less schizophrenic when you fail to
> >> understand simple logic. Also, Sydney's a bit too close to America for
> >> comfort; move to Perth.
> >
> > In _our_ little exchanges, what is the simple logic I fail to
> > understand?
>
> That according to the rules of English grammar, _any_ word starting a
> sentence is capitalized. It may not _look_ right to you and a few others
> here, but that is subjective and irrelevant. "IMacs suck" is correct.
> "iMacs are good" is wrong. This is true based on established standards and
> not merely my opinion or preference. To top it all off, Toby Stinker
> posted and opined in a manner aligned with the noodlism of your errancy. I
> was hypertensively peeved.
>
Boji, I made a decision a long time ago, that I should never
abandon you, no matter how schmucklike you get, as long as you
remain a bit decent. Have you no shame at all: "iMacs are ..." is
wrong because of some _rule_ that is such a mensch for you? Where
is it enshrined as "without exception"? And then explain, if you
can find it, why non-idiots should bow down before it in all
circumstances. (btw, is there a special day of the week that
_you_ set aside for showing respect towards it?)
And what about the argument I gave you that if there were such a
rule it would dictate that some otherwise true sentences would
then become false. Look the thread up and do your homework or I
will get Bergamot onto you.
> > It is a big thing for me to move and you need to
> > explain this deal better.
>
> I didn't think you'd seriously consider it although Perth isn't as
> provincial as it used to be.
I take everything you say with the utmost seriousness. I have
contacted WA real estate agents. Of course, it will be so much
better for you when I challenge you from there. Won't in? You
will feel that much safer. Not. (who needs to be so mature?, not
me.)
--
dorayme
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:12:06 GMT dorayme scribed:
>> >> Hah hah hah! Okay, let's compromise. I'll try to be less
>> >> reactive to idiotic statements if you try to be less schizophrenic
>> >> when you fail to understand simple logic. Also, Sydney's a bit
>> >> too close to America for comfort; move to Perth.
>> >
>> > In _our_ little exchanges, what is the simple logic I fail to
>> > understand?
>>
>> That according to the rules of English grammar, _any_ word starting a
>> sentence is capitalized. It may not _look_ right to you and a few
>> others here, but that is subjective and irrelevant. "IMacs suck" is
>> correct. "iMacs are good" is wrong. This is true based on
>> established standards and not merely my opinion or preference. To
>> top it all off, Toby Stinker posted and opined in a manner aligned
>> with the noodlism of your errancy. I was hypertensively peeved.
>>
>
> Boji, I made a decision a long time ago, that I should never
> abandon you, no matter how schmucklike you get, as long as you
> remain a bit decent. Have you no shame at all: "iMacs are ..." is
> wrong because of some _rule_ that is such a mensch for you?
Why should I be ashamed of being right?
> Where is it enshrined as "without exception"?
Aha, finally a sensible counterpoint. I don't know - maybe there are
exceptions galore, but since evidence of such an exception has yet to be
proffered, my premise stands pat.
> And then explain, if you
> can find it, why non-idiots should bow down before it in all
> circumstances.
If a particular non-idiot professes to follow standards, he or she would
be uncategorically hypocritical to make personal exceptions.
> (btw, is there a special day of the week that
> _you_ set aside for showing respect towards it?)
Nah. I do what I wanna within the primary guidelines I've established
for myself and my woman.
> And what about the argument I gave you that if there were such a
> rule it would dictate that some otherwise true sentences would
> then become false. Look the thread up and do your homework or I
> will get Bergamot onto you.
If memory serves, said argument was vacuous and fallacious even ignoring
the fact that there _is_ such a rule which seems to have been accepted
for centuries by those in the field.
>> > It is a big thing for me to move and you need to
>> > explain this deal better.
>>
>> I didn't think you'd seriously consider it although Perth isn't as
>> provincial as it used to be.
>
> I take everything you say with the utmost seriousness. I have
> contacted WA real estate agents. Of course, it will be so much
> better for you when I challenge you from there. Won't in? You
> will feel that much safer. Not.
My need to feel safe is exceeded only by my need for coffee and
cigarettes so I will revise my recommendation regarding your
transmigration and suggest instead a move to Riyadh. Ha ha, my id gets
giddy just thinking about you becoming sassy with the Arabs.
> (who needs to be so mature?, not
> me.)
Me, neither.
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.