homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.243.23.129
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Home / Forums Index / Browsers / Firefox Browser Usage and Support
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL

Firefox Browser Usage and Support Forum

    
Firefox and img tags
How to show the alt value in Firefox
tomda




msg:1588789
 7:30 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

Which option should I change to show the alt when moving the mouse over a link?

Thanks

 

BonRouge




msg:1588790
 8:21 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

use: title="whatever"

tomda




msg:1588791
 8:27 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I understand now the reason why it never shows my alt text.

I really don't think I am going to modify 'alt' to 'title' in the all of my website! Thanks for the answer anyway

Is 'title' in <img> working properly in Opera and IE?

Secondly, I though title was the anchor link only and that alt were the best option (e.g. for users with hearing problems)

BonRouge




msg:1588792
 8:43 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

You need 'alt' - it's necessary to validate. If you ADD title="..." you'll get the behaviour you want. IE and Opera actually do it wrong. They're a bit stupid.

Anchors use name="" or even just id="".

I'm not sure how 'alt' would help deaf people though - you've got me kind of puzzled by that one.

tomda




msg:1588793
 9:10 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry, I meaned people with viewing problem :LOL

So, I will stick with alt. I am just wondering why Firefox can get it right on this one, the alt attribute is as old as the HTML?

BonRouge




msg:1588794
 9:21 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Firefox gets it right because it conforms to standards. IE gets it wrong because it's a worthless piece of rubbish.

Hester




msg:1588795
 9:23 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Let's get this one straight. IE is the culprit here. The ALT text is not meant to be displayed. You should use title for tooltips. (These can go on a wider range of elements too, not just images.) But because of IE, people started using ALT for tooltips.

Opera DOES NOT show the ALT text as a tooltip. It is therefore not wrong at all. It does show the web address of any linked image, and the tooltip if title was used.

Firefox and Netscape also follow the spec by not showing the ALT text.

Now, the ALT text does help blind people! It is there for when a speech reader program is used to read out the text on a page. Instead of saying "image", the program can use the ALT text instead. Eg: "An image of a cat."

Darkelve




msg:1588796
 1:16 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hester is right. The ALT tag is especially for accessibility purposes. If you want to show extra information, e.g. in a tooltip, you should use the title attribute, which you can use for about any element and which all browsers use correctly. The Alt attribute, however, is only used for images.

The title tag also helps people using assistive technologies. Just be sure to make it descriptive.

IE gets it totally wrong here (not to mention in a lot of other places).

phantombookman




msg:1588797
 2:11 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Millions of pages contain the alt tag and did so long before FF arrived on the scene. Whether it is technically 100% correct is not really the issue in my opinion.
The point is, it is there and if FF wants general acceptance it has to be able to handle these things.

Hiding behind the validation and standards all the time will not alter the fact that FF users cannot see huge numbers of sites the way they were intended whereas IE users can.
I cannot even view this forum without it jumping all over as it sizes up - reminds me of early AOL browsers!

tedster




msg:1588798
 3:22 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

jumping all over as it sizes up

When I first ran into that progressive rendering I also found it disturbing. But I adapted, and now I actually prefer it to the long wait.

valder




msg:1588799
 6:15 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

phantombookman said:
Millions of pages contain the alt tag and did so long before FF arrived on the scene. Whether it is technically 100% correct is not really the issue in my opinion.
The point is, it is there and if FF wants general acceptance it has to be able to handle these things.

Hiding behind the validation and standards all the time will not alter the fact that FF users cannot see huge numbers of sites the way they were intended whereas IE users can.
I cannot even view this forum without it jumping all over as it sizes up - reminds me of early AOL browsers!


Whether it is technically 100% correct is a big issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you still believe the alt tag should display a tooltip? Isn't it pretty clear what the alt tag is? It's alternative text for people who can't/won't see images. Nothing else.

Also, the way I read your post, you suggest that "because things already are the way they are (millions of web pages being badly written because of IE), we should just accept it and keep going the same path". Isn't this obviously wrong? If things are bad, we change them. That's how progress is made.

Sure, we'll meet some problems at first, but we'll adapt. Just because someone has done stupid things for a long time (creating web pages only for IE), doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I wish people would try to see the bigger picture once in a while. That goes for other things than web developing as well. (offtopic: especially politics)

The web really needs standards. If companies like Microsoft keep developing their own, browser-specific web-features, the web will only get more chaotic and user-unfriendly. Cooperation is a key word for the web.

Firefox pushes the ideals of standards, and IE will follow, when Microsoft sees that they have to.

Another thing about IE; it is much too forgiving on wrong code, and this creates poor web developers if they only code for IE. People learn use of tags and syntax that is just wrong, but IE thinks it's fine, so the coder will have no idea.

Firefox is IMO one of the most important things that happened to the web lately.

-Eivind

valder




msg:1588800
 6:28 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Regarding alt and title attributes;
In case anyone are still not sure of their use, alt is for alternative text, title is for tooltips.

Use both if you want tooltips, otherwise use alt (if your image is worth describing). Don't use alt attributes on spacer.gif etc. ;)

phantombookman




msg:1588801
 7:35 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you still believe the alt tag should display a tooltip? Isn't it pretty clear what the alt tag is? It's alternative text for people who can't/won't see images. Nothing else.

Valder, I am aware of what is personally but my point was that huge numbers of people are/were not. I do not suggest that FF has to be IE but that it be more flexible. Whatever anyones opinion of M$ is they cannot be ignored in the real world.

Also, the way I read your post, you suggest that "because things already are the way they are (millions of web pages being badly written because of IE), we should just accept it and keep going the same path". Isn't this obviously wrong? If things are bad, we change them. That's how progress is made

I do think we should accept it, that is not to say we do not move on, and accepting the past does not automatically mean ignoring the future. You cannot seriously expect everyone to alter every website that is not compliant, it will never happen.

I do not advocate poor coding but we are where we are. It may also be worth pointing out that it is not just M$, I have Dreamweaver MX 2004 and it produces code that does not work in FF.
A browser that is so inflexible that it cannot handle code from FP and Macromedia is unlikely to gain mainstream support, IMHO
Regards
Rod

bedlam




msg:1588802
 9:09 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

I do not advocate poor coding but we are where we are. It may also be worth pointing out that it is not just M$, I have Dreamweaver MX 2004 and it produces code that does not work in FF.
A browser that is so inflexible that it cannot handle code from FP and Macromedia is unlikely to gain mainstream support, IMHO

<rant>

Sorry, but this is just an excuse for low-quality coding; it's nothing to do with any browser in particular. Dreamweaver may produce the code, but the coder has to take responsibility for releasing it unchanged. Dreamweaver and its ilk are in some ways awesomely useful things but, in spite of the marketing hype associated with them, they should not be used by beginning html coders. No wysiwyg tool that I know of is capable of producing high-quality markup except in the hands of already-competent coders. The scrambled, one-browser-only sites all over the web today are in large part the result of over-reliance on wysiwyg editors and a single family of user agents.

Many of the people claiming either that "some things don't work on IE" OR "some things don't work in Mozilla"* are just too inexperienced to realize that standards-based coding removes almost all of the guesswork at the outset. Just today, I checked out a site with a complex css-only layout on 18 different browser/platform combinations at browsercam, and guess what? Every single one of them rendered the site correctly (with the exception of some small anomalies in Opera 6.0 Mac related to a known rendering bug).

This is why the standards set gets so irritable about Microsoft's practices; their model is closed, inpenetrable and unpredictable. If they break something it can be extremely difficult to learn to fix it (if it can be fixed at all), because Microsoft doesn't necessarily publicize details about the rules according to which IE is supposed to render html.

On those occasions where Microsoft has been persuaded to participate in the standards movement (e.g. when they added a standards-rendering mode to IE 6), it's been very helpful; the number of known and clearly reproducible bugs and quirks in IE 6's standards-rendering model (and the many hacks and workarounds now available for them) shows very clearly that, if the rendering standards are known, development and troubleshooting become much more predictable (because, i.e. these bugs could be conclusively shown to be bugs with the rendering of particular combinations of html/css).

Web developers repeat after me:

Standards make my job easier, and my pages more accessible. I must write standards compliant code.
Standards make my job easier, and my pages more accessible. I must write standards compliant code...

</rant>

-B

*Obviously I'm not talking about Active-x stuff here.

Hester




msg:1588803
 9:14 am on Jan 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Interestingly enough, browsers like Opera are already catering for IE. They have a rendering mode which allows IE-only code to display better than if they just ignored all its quirks. They've even implemented <marquee>!

I've also read a whole article on how Opera handles malformed code. (Missing end tags, nested tags in the wrong order, etc.) There's a hidden science to dealing with bad code, because they have to - millions of pages use it.

The point is that if they were to produce a browser that only rendered 100% correct code, you just wouldn't be able to use it, except for a minority of sites. So the market has had to cater to sites written for IE only.

Browser makers must therefore decide which non-standard IE elements to support, and which to ignore. When it came to the abuse of ALT tags, they chose to ignore IE's approach.

Of course they also have the W3C specs to follow. I think it's great that Mozilla and Opera and others are at least trying to follow these. In the past, Netscape and Microsoft followed some of the specs, then added custom features to compete with each other. (Border colours! Inner HTML! (Which was so useful it got accepted as a standard.)) Thankfully those days are over.

Sadly we can't code 100% valid code and just release it - there are way too many bugs in all browsers. I hate getting a layout coded correctly, only to find one browser leaves a huge gap between elements, so you have to remove padding. Or IE just makes a total mess, so you have to add hacks.

But we're moving in the right direction.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Browsers / Firefox Browser Usage and Support
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved