HTML alt text

[NickFitz]

How is it a bug?

You said yourself that if the title tag is there, IE displays it.

EDIT:

Just read the link you posted and nowhere in the specification for alt text does is say that the alt text attribute should not be used as a title if the title is not present.

Nowhere does it say that alt text should be used for tooltips if the title attribute is absent, either - in fact, nothing whatsoever even remotely suggests that it is appropriate to display alt text in a tooltip.

As Ardesco points out, this means that if you want to have meaningful alt text (for its intended purpose of providing information to users of assistive technologies) but do not want a tooltip (as it would be redundant and irritating for normal users) then you have to explicitly include an empty title attribute. Every other browser gets this right: only a title attribute with a non-whitespace value will cause a tooltip to appear.

Note that IE also fails to adequately display alt text when an image is absent, instead using a Netscape-Navigator-3-style "broken image" icon with maybe a couple of characters of the alt text squeezed in next to it. Proper browsers, on the other hand, even allow you to apply CSS to alt text, so that if (say) the user has disabled images, the alt text can be displayed in an aesthetically satisfactory way.

#4 NickFitz. Many thanks chappy - I'd used the alt and title attributes previously without ever realising the difference. Your post cleared it all up for me. Brilliant!

NP. It's amazing what you can find out by reading the specs rather than using Microsoft products

[r0bly0ns]

Nowhere does it say that alt text should be used for tooltips if the title attribute is absent, either - in fact, nothing whatsoever even remotely suggests that it is appropriate to display alt text in a tooltip.

Unless a specification says "DO NOT DO THIS", you can't have a go at the developer for doing it!

Note that IE also fails to adequately display alt text when an image is absent, instead using a Netscape-Navigator-3-style "broken image" icon with maybe a couple of characters of the alt text squeezed in next to it. Proper browsers, on the other hand, even allow you to apply CSS to alt text, so that if (say) the user has disabled images, the alt text can be displayed in an aesthetically satisfactory way.

Now this, I do agree with you on!



I'm not saying I think Microsoft is right in this, and I am not saying they are wrong.
I am merley saying that because somebody adds something that is not in the spec, does not mean thay have not adehered to the spec, unless the spec said not to add it.

[Ardesco]

Unless a specification says "DO NOT DO THIS", you can't have a go at the developer for doing it!



Now this, I do agree with you on!



I'm not saying I think Microsoft is right in this, and I am not saying they are wrong.
I am merley saying that because somebody adds something that is not in the spec, does not mean thay have not adehered to the spec, unless the spec said not to add it.

I have a spec here that does not say "Do not force the user to click on a 'Don't Delete' button every five seconds to prevent the database from being wiped." Should I get that feature put in?

Of course you don't do things that aren't on the spec, if the feature was wanted it would be on the spec, otherwise don't touch it!!!

[NickFitz]

Unless a specification says "DO NOT DO THIS", you can't have a go at the developer for doing it!

<snip>

I am merley saying that because somebody adds something that is not in the spec, does not mean thay have not adehered to the spec, unless the spec said not to add it.

Unless a specification says "DO NOT DO THIS", you can't have a go at the developer for doing it!

<snip>

I am merley saying that because somebody adds something that is not in the spec, does not mean thay have not adehered to the spec, unless the spec said not to add it.

I have a spec here that does not say "Do not force the user to click on a 'Don't Delete' button every five seconds to prevent the database from being wiped." Should I get that feature put in?

Of course you don't do things that aren't on the spec, if the feature was wanted it would be on the spec, otherwise don't touch it!!!

What Ardesco said

And given that the same spec specifically defines a feature that can be used for tooltips (the title attribute), why on earth overload another, separate feature with the same functionality?

From the above: 'Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a variety of ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display the title as a "tool tip" (a short message that appears when the pointing device pauses over an object).' Look, MS, there's already a way of doing that, so there's no need to do it again.

In this case MS have deliberately, and for no apparent reason, repurposed a feature whose defined purpose is explicitly stated in the spec: "...alternate text to serve as content when the element cannot be rendered normally." It doesn't say anything about it serving some further purpose when the content can be rendered normally. Is there supposed to be a list of things that shouldn't be done with it?

"Should not be rendered as a tooltip."
"Should not be emailed to everybody in the user's address book."
"Should not be used to overwrite a random sector of the hard disk."
"Should not be sent to a sweet factory for display inside a stick of rock."
"Should not be set as the content of the user's screensaver."
"Should not be used to replace the user's password."
"Should not be..."

[r0bly0ns]

Hook, line and sinker!


You guys make it too easy sometimes

[xoggoth]

Hey! another of my tedious questions has kicked off an acrimonious IE of Firefox etc debate excellent! I am doing interactives to run in a webbrowser in VB.net but would like to put some samples on line at some time so ways of getting to work on other than IE are relevant. Ta all.

[r0bly0ns]

On a serious note, it looks like Microsoft are finally getting the message:


http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/200...s-and-ie8.aspx



I wonder if this has anything to do with that big fine they got last week..........