SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 80
  1. #51
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by junjun View Post
    How can Picasso's Guernica have an equal text equivalent?
    It depends on the context where it is used. The original painting, presumably hanging on a museum wall somewhere, doesn't have a text equivalent. It stands on its own, representing a piece of art which words can never do justice.

    A digital replica of the painting could have a text equivalent in some contexts, although it's unlikely. It could be an illustration of the atrocities of war in general or the Nazis in particular. It could be an illustration of Picasso's style of painting. Depending on which, the text equivalents would be very, very different.

    And, of course, if the digital image is used purely as a design element, then it has no text equivalent at all (or, rather, an empty one).

    Quote Originally Posted by junjun View Post
    Images are not automatically equal to text, or the other way around.
    Of course not, but they are two different methods of conveying information. Sometimes a picture says more than a thousand words; sometimes it simply says one word (e.g., a graphical button); sometimes it doesn't convey any relevant information in its context, but is purely decorative.

    Quote Originally Posted by junjun View Post
    I beg your pardon? The alt attribute is used to guide user agents, that should be elementary for anyone advocating web standards. Why are you implying that I use the alt attribute to shut up a validator?
    If you look closer at the text snippet you quoted you'll see that it starts with the word 'Don't'.
    A majority of web designers don't understand the alt attribute. They see it as an annoyance. Even the HTML5 WG does, apparently, since they plan to make it non-required. I was trying to say that it is important.

    Quote Originally Posted by junjun View Post
    If you really think an image is just a visual equivalent of some text, I can understand why you think it's o.k. to use it inside the paragraph tag.
    Why does everyone seem to miss the crucial bit of this argument? It depends on the context where the image is used!

    Not every image in every context is a visual equivalent of some text. I've said so repeatedly and stated that such an image should have alt="". Better yet, it should be a background image specified with CSS, since it isn't part of the content.

    Images that are part of the content do convey important information, though, and should have a text equivalent that conveys the same information.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  2. #52
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    But to take it further... let's say the Japanese get the whole smell-o-vision thing working. And Dole.com decides to use it (this is the future with flying cars maybe but still I think relevent) on their site, which is about fruit. If a smell were being used the same way as images of say oranges and lemons and mangoes, would those also be sitting in <p> tags? Since they of course also have a text equivilent.

    (this is assuming these smells and images are considered content and not background/presentation)

  3. #53
    SitePoint Wizard ryanhellyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,323
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow! I've read this topic from start to finish and my brain is starting to hurt. I'm not quite ready to go poking IMG's into my P's, but I'll at least consider using DIV's for the purpose now.

    I've been blindly placing inline and block level elements on the same level for quite some time now and had no idea there was anything wrong with it. Some of the examples above do clearly show that it isn't a particularly semantical option though.

    Off Topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Schulz View Post
    ... really make me want to have a deathshadow moment - reach for a dictionary and HIT someone with it
    Lol. What happened to Deathshadow anyway? I miss his diatribes.

  4. #54
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanhellyer View Post
    Lol. What happened to Deathshadow anyway? I miss his diatribes.
    They continue on the Opera Community Forums.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  5. #55
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    Off Topic:


    They continue on the Opera Community Forums.
    Off Topic:

    And elsewhere as well.

  6. #56
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Soo... would you guys consider this as content:



    As far as I'm concerned, I see a flip-flop somewhere on the upper right. Would it be correct to describe this image in the alt tag as "colorful white flip flop poster?"

    If so, would you say that was the correct way to properly describe this poster? And is that description warrant enough to place this in a <p> tag?

    Not trying to mock - just asking, as there seems to be a very very thin, and extremely vague line, between images as content and images as just images.

  7. #57
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It would depend greatly on the context in which the image was used. Is it purely decorational, or is it enhancing the topic at hand?

  8. #58
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why not just put it in a stylesheet? That's what I do & it works like a charm.
    TYCP Magazine
    Picspaces - image hosting with unlimited bandwidth
    Hollywood Encountered - submit your celebrity encounters

  9. #59
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Because not all images are presentational. In fact, a great deal of them are actually content images.

  10. #60
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by XLCowBoy View Post
    Soo... would you guys consider this as content:
    ...
    Would it be correct to describe this image in the alt tag as "colorful white flip flop poster?"
    ...
    If so, would you say that was the correct way to properly describe this poster? And is that description warrant enough to place this in a <p> tag?
    Is anyone even reading the posts I've made in this thread? It doesn't appear so.

    The meaning of an image depends on the context!

    It's not possible to state whether an image 'is content' without knowing the context where it will be used. That image will be content in some context and purely decorative in others. The text equivalent will be different in each context.

    There isn't one given ALT text for every image!

    And there are no <alt> tags in (X)HTML, only alt attributes.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  11. #61
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Come on Tommy. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

  12. #62
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    Is anyone even reading the posts I've made in this thread? It doesn't appear so.

    The meaning of an image depends on the context!

    It's not possible to state whether an image 'is content' without knowing the context where it will be used. That image will be content in some context and purely decorative in others. The text equivalent will be different in each context.

    There isn't one given ALT text for every image!

    And there are no <alt> tags in (X)HTML, only alt attributes.
    Lol. I think everyone knew what I meant. (Personally, I just code - I rarely remember what their labels are... tag? label? attribute? Generally, I just know how things work, not what they're called. The unfortunate result of self-teaching probably.)

    Going back to your first response, say the theoretical setup is:
    <h1>havaianas sells 2M pairs in 3 months</h1>
    <img="that image above" alt="havaianas colored poster with white flip flop"/>
    <p>article discussing the sale of 2M pairs</p>

    Do I wrap the image within p tags because it supports the article? Since it is related to havainas? Or do I leave it out, because the alternative description of the image isn't used to support the article at all?

  13. #63
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The image would be used to support the article, but it's not a group of related text sentences that discuss or infer a common topic. Just like how headings are not parts of paragraphs.

    Though some people seem to disagree with me on this (again, this is why a dictionary comes in handy - and no, it's not to hit people with it).

  14. #64
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Knowing me, I'd stick it in the background, cause I really couldn't describe it with alt text. Or any text. It's a bunch of colour blobs and I think I see a face or two?

  15. #65
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by XLCowBoy View Post
    Going back to your first response, say the theoretical setup is:
    <h1>havaianas sells 2M pairs in 3 months</h1>
    <img="that image above" alt="havaianas colored poster with white flip flop"/>
    <p>article discussing the sale of 2M pairs</p>
    In this context, the image seems to be purely decorative. It doesn't convey any information germane to the article. Thus I would mark it up like this:
    Code HTML4Strict:
    <h1>havaianas sells 2M pairs in 3 months</h1>
    <p><img src="that image above" alt="">
    article discussing the sale of 2M pairs</p>

    The image doesn't represent any content (hence the empty alt="" attribute), but needs to be in a block-level container. I would just stick it in the paragraph and probably float the image to let the text flow around it.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  16. #66
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    In this context, the image seems to be purely decorative. It doesn't convey any information germane to the article. Thus I would mark it up like this:
    Code HTML4Strict:
    <h1>havaianas sells 2M pairs in 3 months</h1>
    <p><img src="that image above" alt="">
    article discussing the sale of 2M pairs</p>

    The image doesn't represent any content (hence the empty alt="" attribute), but needs to be in a block-level container. I would just stick it in the paragraph and probably float the image to let the text flow around it.
    *scratches head*

    But if the alt tags are empty, and in theory, means that the image isn't content (since you yourself said it's purely decorative), why would you place it inside a content block? Wouldn't that be semantically incorrect?

  17. #67
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    40,355
    Mentioned
    179 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by xlcowboy
    why would you place it inside a content block
    Because an image is an inline element and needs to be inside a block container (which I believe is the comment that started most of this debate ).

    If you move the image outside of the p tag then you would need to create a proper block container for it which seems a bit of a waste of code when it is quite semantically neutral where it is (screenreaders know they should ignore images that have empty alt attributes and don't announce them). If the image is decoration then really it should be in the background anyway.

    As Tommy said we seem to be going over old ground here.

    It's all about structure and context.

    As I said earlier IE quite often misplaces elements if everything isn't taken care of so don't do things like this:
    Code:
    <div>I am some anonymous text
        <p>But I am nicely contained</p>
        <p>I am nicely contained</p>
    </div>
    Just because the first line is an image instead of the "I am some anonymous text" text you should still follow good html practices and enclose it in the appropriate block container.

    [edit]
    I just remembered I said I had finished posting in this thread and now I've gone and posted again
    [edit]

  18. #68
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul O'B View Post
    Because an image is an inline element and needs to be inside a block container (which I believe is the comment that started most of this debate ).

    If you move the image outside of the p tag then you would need to create a proper block container for it which seems a bit of a waste of code when it is quite semantically neutral where it is (screenreaders know they should ignore images that have empty alt attributes and don't announce them). If the image is decoration then really it should be in the background anyway.
    Thanks for explaining, Paul. I couldn't have said it better myself. Let's hope they listen to you, at least.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  19. #69
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul O'B View Post
    Because an image is an inline element and needs to be inside a block container (which I believe is the comment that started most of this debate ).

    If you move the image outside of the p tag then you would need to create a proper block container for it which seems a bit of a waste of code when it is quite semantically neutral where it is (screenreaders know they should ignore images that have empty alt attributes and don't announce them). If the image is decoration then really it should be in the background anyway.

    As Tommy said we seem to be going over old ground here.

    It's all about structure and context.

    As I said earlier IE quite often misplaces elements if everything isn't taken care of so don't do things like this:
    Code:
    <div>I am some anonymous text
        <p>But I am nicely contained</p>
        <p>I am nicely contained</p>
    </div>
    Just because the first line is an image instead of the "I am some anonymous text" text you should still follow good html practices and enclose it in the appropriate block container.

    [edit]
    I just remembered I said I had finished posting in this thread and now I've gone and posted again
    [edit]
    I understand what you're saying, but if that's the case, and based on the comment above and where we are now, then wouldn't this be more appropriate:

    Code:
    <div>
    <h1>header</h1>
    <img="that image above" alt=""/>
    <p>content</p>
    </div>
    I mean, after all, the <div> is a block-level element.

    I'm not actually arguing that the image has to be within a block element. I just seem to find it unusual that you guys are placing it specifically in the <p> element, when it isn't content, and does not have any alternative content to be read.

  20. #70
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    40,355
    Mentioned
    179 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    I mean, after all, the <div> is a block-level element.
    Noooooooo.....

    You are still basically saying this:

    Code:
    <div>
    <h1>header</h1>
     bit of fluff here
    <p>content</p>
    </div>
    The text that says "bit of fluff" is basically your inline image and just hangs there in mid-air.

    The image version is exactly the same and is sandwiched between two block elements. You wouldn't write the text above in the same way would you? So afford the image the same courtesy and put it in a container.

    You would need to contain it like this:
    Code:
    <div>
    <h1>header</h1>
    <p>bit of fluff here</p>
    <p>content</p>
    </div>
    or like this:
    Code:
    <div>
        <h1>header</h1>
        <p><img src="that image above" alt=""/></p>
        <p>content</p>
    </div>
    IE hates it when you don't do that anyway (as well as not being structurally sound). Of course you could use a div instead of the p that I've added but as you are writing a sentences then a p element seems the logical choice for the image container. Which his why Tommy suggested putting the image inside the original p element and avoiding extra html at the same time.

    Although the page will validate if you mix inline elements between block elements (assuming they aren't direct children of the body) you should always make things structurally sound and complete.

    For instance this is quite valid but nonsense.

    Code:
    <div>
        <h1>header</h1>
        This is the start of some text but it's finsished now
        <p>content here again</p>
        This is somethng else that I need to write.
        <p>This is more text for some reason</p>
        Now i've finished </div>
    </body>
    Even DW gets confused and has formatted the code badly with the closing div not lining up with the opening div. I always use code formatting so that I can see at a glance whether a tag has been missed out or not. You can't do this if you aren't consistent in your mark up.

    It's just a matter of good coding practice.

  21. #71
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Image is content.

  22. #72
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by XLCowBoy View Post
    I understand what you're saying, but if that's the case, and based on the comment above and where we are now, then wouldn't this be more appropriate:

    Code:
    <div>
    <h1>header</h1>
    <img="that image above" alt=""/>
    <p>content</p>
    </div>
    To reuse my parking lot analogy, that's similar to:
    Code:
    <parkinglot>
      <car/>
      steering wheel
      <car/>
    </parkinglot>
    The steering wheel (inline element) belongs inside a car (block element); it shouldn't be in a parking space of its own.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  23. #73
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hmmmm... interesting.

    I will concede that that does make more sense.

  24. #74
    SitePoint Zealot ikjosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    189
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, I'm not reading all these posts, so not sure if it's been pointed out yet or not...

    warpdesign,

    <img src="image.jpg" style="float: left;">

    you gotta add the semi colon for IE to recognize it. Give it a try, should work.

  25. #75
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ikjosh View Post
    you gotta add the semi colon for IE to recognize it.
    What version of IE does this apply to? It works without problem in IE6.

    The semicolon is only necessary between CSS declarations. After the last declaration it's optional.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •