Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
W3C says "If no title attribute is used, and the alt text is set to null (i.e. alt="") it indicates to assistive technology that the image can be safely ignored."
If no title attribute is used, and the alt text is set to null (i.e. alt="") it indicates to assistive technology that the image can be safely ignored.
Do your user understand the hint "--" as horizontal decorative line?
This example is the same as the previous example, except that the link is on the W3C web site. The text alternative is a brief description of the link target.
<img src="images/w3c_home.png" width="72" height="48" alt="W3C home">
Here's an example of an image being used as a decorative banner for a person's blog, the image offers no information and so an empty alt attribute is used.
<div><img src="border.gif" alt="" width="400" height="30"></div>
<p>Welcome to my blog...</p>
The title attribute represents advisory information for the element, such as would be appropriate for a tooltip. On a link, this could be the title or a description of the target resource; on an image, it could be the image credit or a description of the image; on a paragraph, it could be a footnote or commentary on the text; on a citation, it could be further information about the source; on interactive content, it could be a label for, or instructions for, use of the element; and so forth. The value is text.
I like to put the image inside the same <h..> tags it would have if it were text
The source, copyright?
wouldn't that raise a flag for spam in Google?
I don't see why it would. The robot, er, I mean the computer behind the robot looks at the positioning and distribution of headers. In particular, it expects to find an h1 on every page. (I know this because wmt is always yattering at me about it.) Give it a pair of <h1>tags</h1> enclosing an image with a suitable alt, and it will be happy.