IMG, Title attribute

always good or use with caution?

[pshea]

Is the Title attribute of a link an opportunity hiding in plain sight? I'm getting the idea that it is. Looking into this has been on the back burner for a while, edged forward today because I now have a page that is primarily images and I am looking for text opportunities anywhere I can.

Over the past months, this has been discussed a couple of times and the essential pearls follow:

June 2001, tedster [webmasterworld.com]
"The title attribute seems to be an under-utilized feature of HTML today. I think that the original idea was to include the title of the document being linked to, but any kind of explanation of the link's destination might increase usability in various situations."
July 2001, Brett [webmasterworld.com]
"title or Alt? Use both. title is intended for the mouse over, while alt is intended for non-graphical agents. Alt should be an 'alternative' to the graphic, while title should be 'descriptive' of the graphic."
August 2001, Brett [webmasterworld.com]
"The title tag is getting more weight than the alt tag these days. Alta is the only I know that is really giving it anything at all. Google will use alt's when all else fails, but I don't think they work into the algo at all"
February 2002, tedster [webmasterworld.com]
"The title attribute in a link is still something of a sleeper on the web. The intention of the tag is rather scholarly -- to have it be the exact title of the document you link to. So it very naturally refers off page, whereas the alt attribute is primarily and on page thing."

Does the title attribute contribute to the word count of a document? If so, should it then be used with caution with an eye toward keyword imbalance?

So far, I am perfectly satisfied with living life without using this. But if it would be helpful for graphic-heavy pages (or anywhere for that matter) where text is just simply scarce, then that's another story. Pros and cons appreciated. Thanks all.

[JamesR]

Personally if I were an SE, I wouldn't give it much weight. Any hidden text is liable to be abused and used to misrepresent the content of a page. I know that doesn't answer your question, but long term, I don't think it is the answer.

[Brett_Tabke]

>word count of a document

Hi pshea. Yes, some engines do include it in the algo. I've got a couple of sites that are graphic based, and I use the title to reinforce the filename with a description.

It's not a great deal of weight, but on graphics intense pages, it can make a difference. Just use them respectfully (no kw stuffing now), and you should be ok.

[papabaer]

I have been using the title tag extensively for the last six months or so; it was part of a decision to move towards greater accessibility and Web Standards.

As with the ALT tag, the title tag provides a means for desriptive explanation:it enhaces those one or two word links that you use when trying to keep your menus concise, e.g. for a "poetry" you might include a title tag such as title="Modern gothic poetry, published and newly submitted." This is most useful when there is little "contextual" information surrounding the link to fully explain its value.

On occasion I will use a title tag to provide a brief description of the contents of a particularly large text section enclosed in a <div title="Arguments for the appropriate use of title tags"> or even as a brief explantion of an unordered list; generally, in my usage, ordered lists are more formal and are preceeded by a standard form of title, offsetting the need for a "title tag."

I now make a point to use the table "summary" tag as well, since it to is recommended to enhance Web Accessibility.

In printed material we are free to use footnotes or (parenthetical elucidations), when building web pages, we are often more constrained, though we shouldn't be. Design and layout are the modifying factors, therefore title tag provides a means to include descriptions where space (because of layout) may not allow.

Do title tags hurt or help?

Personally, I have seen no evidence that title tags hurt rankings, or are perceived as spam tactics. I have mulitple pages with excellent rankings, that make full use of title tags throughout the documents. I do ensure that ALL of my title tags are relavent. I do not use them to insert "hidden, unrelated" key phrase snippets. I use title tags to ADD to the CONTENT in a way that is (hopefully) useful to my visitors, while providing a fuller, more desriptive explanation of what certain element (links, divs, lists, etc.) are about.

Can title tags (and table summary tags) be abused? Absolutely! But when used with forethought and design, both serve useful VALID purpose.

My own results are convincing enough: I will continue to use both title and table summary tags. It allows me to enhance the Web Accessibility of my pages and perhaps, provide additional spider food.

My vote? Use them both.