abbr vs alt

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

abbr vs alt

Jim Jewett

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Sorin Schwimmer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>   <abbr title="Uses SmartChip technology"><img src="smartchip.jpg"></abbr>

My first thought was that this was clearly wrong; there is no text
inside the abbr, and no alt on the img.

But as I thought more about it, I started to wonder if Sorin's
solution is actually better than the current solution.  (Except, of
course, that it isn't standard -- and I'm not sure how hard it would
be to teach assistive technology about idioms like this.)

Would  <img src="smartchip.jpg" alt="Uses SmartChip technology">
really be better?  The "Uses" really isn't part of the alt, and people
browsing *with* images would lose the valuable information about why
that image was chosen.  (Equivalent to a key or legend on a map.)

<abbr title="Uses"><img src="smartchip.jpg" alt="Uses SmartChip
technology"></abbr> gets the image right, but is even more clearly
abuse of abbr.

<span title="Uses SmartChip technology"><img src="smartchip.jpg"></span>
is worse because the iconic image is arguably an abbreviation, and
because titles on span are less likely to be made available.

-jJ

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: abbr vs alt

Simon Pieters-3

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:38:42 +0100, Jim Jewett <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Sorin Schwimmer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>   <abbr title="Uses SmartChip technology"><img  
>> src="smartchip.jpg"></abbr>
>
> My first thought was that this was clearly wrong; there is no text
> inside the abbr, and no alt on the img.
>
> But as I thought more about it, I started to wonder if Sorin's
> solution is actually better than the current solution.  (Except, of
> course, that it isn't standard -- and I'm not sure how hard it would
> be to teach assistive technology about idioms like this.)
>
> Would  <img src="smartchip.jpg" alt="Uses SmartChip technology">
> really be better?  The "Uses" really isn't part of the alt, and people
> browsing *with* images would lose the valuable information about why
> that image was chosen.  (Equivalent to a key or legend on a map.)
>
> <abbr title="Uses"><img src="smartchip.jpg" alt="Uses SmartChip
> technology"></abbr> gets the image right, but is even more clearly
> abuse of abbr.
>
> <span title="Uses SmartChip technology"><img src="smartchip.jpg"></span>
> is worse because the iconic image is arguably an abbreviation, and
> because titles on span are less likely to be made available.

Under the assumption that the image under the given context means just  
'SmartChip', how about

    <img src="smartship.jpg" alt="SmartChip" title="Uses SmartChip  
technology">

--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: abbr vs alt

Sorin Schwimmer
In reply to this post by Jim Jewett

I should have used <img src="smartchip.jpg" title="Uses SmartChip technology">, but not knowing about the title attribute in img, I forced my way with abbr. I did change my code, and it is working properly (Konqueror on Gentoo Linux). As of alt, I don't need it, knowing my targeted audience.

"Uses" is just the best word that I found (and English is not my first language), but has no special meaning in my mind, other then the one suggested by the statement in the title attribute. If I stumbled over something, is just a coincidence dictated by my limited knowledge.

My proposal in what has become Replaceable element for parameterising pages (was: Proposal for small enhancement) is only about a shorthand for the code writer.

Regards,
Sorin Schwimmer