The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So, I'm meant to put alt tags for every single image I use then? F**k off.
Page:
Tyla wrote:
> Something like
>
> IMG[alt="my image"] {...}
So how does this work exactly? You mean you can apply styles to the alt text via that method? What limitations are there?
> Something like
>
> IMG[alt="my image"] {...}
So how does this work exactly? You mean you can apply styles to the alt text via that method? What limitations are there?
another joy to alst's is CSS selectors by attribute. Not fully supported, but rocks in FF.
You can apply a blanket style in CSS using elements or divs etc, but attribute selectors rock! Based in the content of a set attribute, you can apply a unique style.
Something like
IMG[alt="my image"] {...}
Never thought of applying it to images, but have used it for forms, and indeed, 'tis a nice quirk of CSS2.
As for the alt in general, as I mentioned in a earlier post, xHTML makes you code properly to a strict set of rules in the DTD. xHTML was laso designed with accessible access in mind, hence the need for descriptive tags for images and links (title)
Ideally, images should also contain londesc(?) BUt thats another kettle of fish altogether
You can apply a blanket style in CSS using elements or divs etc, but attribute selectors rock! Based in the content of a set attribute, you can apply a unique style.
Something like
IMG[alt="my image"] {...}
Never thought of applying it to images, but have used it for forms, and indeed, 'tis a nice quirk of CSS2.
As for the alt in general, as I mentioned in a earlier post, xHTML makes you code properly to a strict set of rules in the DTD. xHTML was laso designed with accessible access in mind, hence the need for descriptive tags for images and links (title)
Ideally, images should also contain londesc(?) BUt thats another kettle of fish altogether
monkey_man wrote:
> So, I'm meant to put alt tags for every single image I use then?
Yes, because it describes what the image is. Blind people can't see a picture, but a screen reader can describe it via the alt tag. Browsers also display the alt text in place if an image can't be loaded, be it because the src attribute points to the wrong address, or people have images turned off in their browser.
If the image isn't classed as part of the relevant content (i.e the image is just a spacer, border or a rule across the page) then an empty alt should be used.
The W3C believe and promote that the web should be accessible to everybody on any type of device, and write the mark-up specification to accommodate this belief.
> So, I'm meant to put alt tags for every single image I use then?
Yes, because it describes what the image is. Blind people can't see a picture, but a screen reader can describe it via the alt tag. Browsers also display the alt text in place if an image can't be loaded, be it because the src attribute points to the wrong address, or people have images turned off in their browser.
If the image isn't classed as part of the relevant content (i.e the image is just a spacer, border or a rule across the page) then an empty alt should be used.
The W3C believe and promote that the web should be accessible to everybody on any type of device, and write the mark-up specification to accommodate this belief.
Checks site.
*cries*
*cries*
It's just in the requirements of the XHTML standards I guess, annoying, but it'll make your site meet the demands of the standards that are set.
Obviously a blank alt tag will work...but why do I have to?
For xHTML 1.0 you do I think
Just put ' alt="" '
And it'll work :)
Just put ' alt="" '
And it'll work :)
So, I'm meant to put alt tags for every single image I use then? F**k off.
Page: