"alt" and text based software

[cg9com]

If there are images for navigation, obviously some text based software couldnt read it, my question is:If i have an image in a link with the alt tag like so:
<a href="blah.html"><img src="blah.gif" alt="click for blah!" /></a>
in text based, would it be viewed like: click for blah! (blah.html).
the reason im asking, is that i want to know whether i really need to create another set of text navigation links somewhere else, or will the one set of image navigation be enough with the proper HTML.
i guess the obvious question would be "why dont you just check it yourself?", in which i would reply "i dont know how, and i dont have access to any type of specific software." :D

[brothercake]

Get Opera - you can turn off images with one click. You could also get Lynx - the ultimate test. Both of these programs are free to download.

Anyway - yes, a text browser will render the ALT text. Remember that ALT text should describe the image rather than its function.

[Vladdy]

And function can be described by the title attribute ;)

[brothercake]

Indeed :D

What's your view on longdesc? At what kind of image purpose or complexity does it become necessary?

[Vladdy]

Never had a reason to use it ... yet...

[brothercake]

Daunting innit :rolleyes:

I'm doing a major site overhaul at the moment, and it's going to involve lots of graphs - pie charts, line graphs, bar graphs, et al

But what real value is there in a visual description of a graph, unless you're making direct reference to the data it represents? So I was thinking, maybe the best longdesc for a graph is a data table :) Whatdya reckon?

[cg9com]

Originally posted by brothercake
yes, a text browser will render the ALT text. Remember that ALT text should describe the image rather than its function.
ok, but will it render it as a hyperlink if its inside the anchor?
and i know it should describe the image, however if the image is just the words "portfolio" surely the alt could be the same, this way its still representing the same navigation. right? :o
also, i had other software in mind when i said text based, like a wireless device? but im not too clear on that.

[Vladdy]

If the image is there just to represent the link, make it anchor element background and avoid all the problems :thumbsup:
Allows for "JS"less rollover as well:

a.portfolio
{ background-image: url("portfolio.gif");
}

a.portfolio:hover
{ background-image: url("portfolioHover.gif");
}

To add text fix the height of the anchor element and make the top padding twice (or so) the height.

As a result in CSS enabled browsers your link will be viewed as an image, and text browsers will see the text :thumbsup:

[brothercake]

Originally posted by cg9com
ok, but will it render it as a hyperlink if its inside the anchor?
and i know it should describe the image, however if the image is just the words "portfolio" surely the alt could be the same, this way its still representing the same navigation. right?

Yes to both:

- a hyperlinked image will render as hyperlinked alt text

- if the image is an image of some text then the alt text should say the same thing.

[cg9com]

intresting idea vladdy

longdesc="", i honestly dont see the point. but i think text based would render title="" funny, in that case i assume longdesc="" could come in handy although there both HTML4 specs.
i assume title="" could be used for tooltip and longdesc="" for a text based description, in conjunction with the alt=""
sort of like summary="" for tables.

<img src="blah.gif" alt=":-)" longdesc="this is a smile" />

[brothercake]

Originally posted by cg9com
i assume title="" could be used for tooltip and longdesc="" for a text based description, in conjunction with the alt=""
sort of like summary="" for tables.

<img src="blah.gif" alt=":-)" longdesc="this is a smile" />
Yeah almost - it's like levels of verbosity - ALT - TITLE - LONGDESC. Longdesc should be used for complex pictures that can't be described in a few words or a sentence.

the attribute value itself is not the text - it's a URL to a separate file, which can be as long and involved as is necessary; check out http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/box.html#box-dimensions - see the picture that demonstrates how the CSS box model works; now click the "D" link to see the longdesc.

How useful is that? I don't really know; describing pictures is insanely difficult - which is why we draw pictures in the first place ;)

But I would say that whenever you have a picture whose content is central to what you're presenting, without a full understanding of which the whole page or section of content is irrelevant, then use longdesc.

btw - summary is not the same; summary is a summary, where longdesc is a complete description.

[cg9com]

I see, i've never used it though :).
Thanks for the input, both of you :D.