Re: Alt and/or Title

Uuum, aaah, I recommend against the TITLE attribute.

1) It is part of a transitional DTD . . . right? It takes about 20 minutes
of reading at http://www.hwg.org and/or http://www/w3.org to realize that
it is a bad idea to validate against a transitional DTD if your pages are
going to be on the web a while.

2) We all know those who say "browsers ignore code they do not understand"
. . . probably do not write HTML, because that is *mostly* B.S.. Code the
browser does not understand *frequently* results in scrambled pages.

On the other hand the ALT attribute has been part of ratified standards for
quite a while now. You can not produce a valid HTML document containing
images or image maps without including that attribute.

***OBVIOUSLY*** just my not so humble opinion (except for that ALT part).
Take it for what it's worth.
Fuzzy.


At 06:37 AM 1/5/01 -0600, Charla & Ed Springer wrote:
>James,
>
>I use the "alt" attribute always. I believe accessability standards will
>tell you that as well. Don't forget your wider audience, some folks have
>non-graphical browsers or turn the graphics off in newer ones. As for the
>"title" attribute, I'd have to deffer to Woody on that one unless others can
>give reasons for its universal use. I don't use it very often, usually on
>graphics used as links.
>
>Edward Springer
>Athens, Alabama - Where it looks more like New Jersey this week.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "JamesKB" <jameskb(at)mindspring.com>
>To: "HWG" <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
>Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:40 PM
>Subject: Alt and/or Title
>
>
>> What are your thoughts on the use of "alt" and/or "title"  with the Img
>tag?
>> Is it considered proper to use one of the other or both??
>>
>> Take Care.......  -=JKB=-
>>
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA