HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.

[The Alien]

Interesting discussion, but it's currently very much biased towards people with a disability who need some (software-)tool to understand images. This was first posted in Remi's first post here. The link points to a webpage where someone is holding a speech to prove his/her point of view about why people should write correct HTML code. People with a disability certainly deserve this, but there are more reasons than that. On page 2, I see more and broader reasons why people should write correct HTML.

But if I were to continue on the subject of people who use tools to read the alt tags of images (since everyone here loves to discuss this issue ), my opinion would be this:
We've all heard of the saying "a picture speaks a thousand words". Well, this is true. Now, try to put 1000 words in the alt tag...
As an example, I'll take an image from a recent thread the Xara Gallery.
Here's the challenge: what would you put in the alt tag? It could be:
- The Green Goblin
- The Green Goblin on his hoverboard
- The Green Goblin on his hoverboard laughing diabolically
- The Green Goblin on his hoverboard laughing diabolically and holding a pumpkin bomb
- The Green Goblin on his hoverboard laughing diabolically and holding a pumpkin bomb drawn in a cartoonish fashion
- The Green Goblin on his hoverboard laughing diabolically and holding a smoking pumpkin bomb, drawn in a cartoonish (dithered) fashion
- The Green Goblin on his hoverboard laughing diabolically and holding a pumpkin bomb drawn in a cartoonish (dithered) fashion with a blue/yellow faded background with white stars and the title 'GREEN GOBLIN' at the top of the image in bold letters (in green, of course).
- ...

Chances are, most webdesigners will go for the first or the second (maybe the third) alternative in the list. These choices are definately better than nothing, but they're not anywhere close to adequate IMO. The user won't know what this picture is displaying beyond that it's the green goblin on his hoverboard (if he was born blind, he wouldn't even know how the green goblin looks like). The user wouldn't catch the image's atmosphere and the whole thing would look like a simple composition without any depth.
Now, you can say that the user would have to use his imagination to visualise the character, very much like reading a book without pictures. But this goes for artistic pictures like those posted on the Xara gallery. What about webpages that have an image of some sort of schematic, similar to what you may find on e.g. Wikipedia? How on earth would a webdesigner come up with an alt text that suffices there?
We can all behave like good webdesigners and put alt texts inside our img tags, and sit back comfortably in our chair knowing that we've done our jobs right and that the minority with a disability can also understand ( ) the image. But the fact is, that won't help a lot.
I'm sorry, but alt texts are only sufficient for the most simple images
For more complex ones, one should always use a caption - like figures in scientific papers - to explain what's going on.
Another solution would be in hoping that the technology would advance to a point where images could somehow be "shown" to people with visual disability using other methods (tactile, auditory, maybe even by some direct chip-to-brain interface).
These are the disadvantages of alt texts. We are not robots, we're humans who should use their common sense and good judgements. If you think alt texts won't help, don't use them. Instead think about what would help and what the users need and change your plan accordingly. Choose what users you want to focus on.

Anyway, as I said, there's more to making your code valid than just taking care of people who use other means to communicate with the web :\

[Soquili]

John, the Narrator only reads Alt tags if you have images turned off.

I think The Alien has the best solution. Captions would be more descriptive than Alt tags.

[Egg Bramhill]

Risto,

That's funny! Maybe that's why they are called "validators" and not "IADOWMBPDHTCPBPBMBTTSDs" = "Interpreters And Decoders Of Well Meaning But Poorly Defined HTML That Could Perhaps Be Presented By Most Browsers Today, To Some Degree" (TM)?

I like that

But "validators" can very easily become "enforcers" of such things as 2FOWNDAOTF's (2nd Floor Office Without Disabled Access Or Toilet Facilities)

It's the practicality of writing this strict code that's the issue.
No Alt Tag,
the "Enter gif" Alt tag,
the " " Alt tag,
the "Click here to enter our unbelievable super-duper bargain basement electrical store" Alt tag or
the "Click to enter our electrics store" Alt tag


Risto seems to be implying that there is a difference between creating a site for a smallish company and one with a multi-million turnover (quoting OTH, which after a search I take to be One Tree Hill, whatever that is?) I couldn't agree more.

[RTK]

Risto seems to be implying that there is a difference between creating a site for a smallish company and one with a multi-million turnover (quoting OTH, which after a search I take to be One Tree Hill, whatever that is?) I couldn't agree more.

Perhaps in a way... But I guess it's more of a question where it truly matters (where it could be do or die (or where it can really make a significant difference)) = it can also be the electrician that installs custom emergency power sources in your local area private residences... I bet that every potentially highly targeted website visitor/customer makes a difference for him or her also... It would be a crime if someone couldn't find/read the site simply because of poor code, no?

But as Remi said, for him it's not an "extra cost / extra hassle" - he just works that way (knowing the rules, I guess). So, my question is: if the site really matters to you - and every customer (visitor) really matters to you - and you really want to provide the best possible product (as defined by the one authority that every reputable web related organization/business looks at): why not strive to get things right?

Perhaps this is simply one of those unregulated businesses where anything goes (for now)? A market shared by developers THAT KNOW and developers THAT DON'T? With buyers that have NO CLUE and buyers that KNOW EXACTLY what they require?

There are also so many unknowns... Perhaps search engines also look at properly coded sites when it comes to "authority" and "not being spam"? Who knows?

Risto

[remi]

The thinking, that such a little thing like a alt tag doesn't matter, is wrong in my eyes. If you want to write a HTML page, you has to write correct HTML/CSS code as far as possible - regardless of the project size. And the right syntax for including a Image into a HTML page is free available for every Webdesigner:

CODE HTML 4.01
<!-- To avoid problems with text-only UAs as well as
   to make image content understandable and navigable
   to users of non-visual UAs, you need to provide
   a description with ALT, and avoid server-side image maps -->
<!ELEMENT IMG - O EMPTY                -- Embedded image -->
<!ATTLIST IMG
  %attrs;                              -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events --
  src         %URI;          #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
  alt         %Text;         #REQUIRED -- short description --
  longdesc    %URI;          #IMPLIED  -- link to long description
                                          (complements alt) --
  name        CDATA          #IMPLIED  -- name of image for scripting --
  height      %Length;       #IMPLIED  -- override height --
  width       %Length;       #IMPLIED  -- override width --
  usemap      %URI;          #IMPLIED  -- use client-side image map --
  ismap       (ismap)        #IMPLIED  -- use server-side image map --

source: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#h-13.2

or with XHTML 1.0:

<!--
  To avoid accessibility problems for people who aren't
  able to see the image, you should provide a text
  description using the alt and longdesc attributes.
  In addition, avoid the use of server-side image maps.
-->

<!ELEMENT img EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST img
 %attrs;
 src         %URI;          #REQUIRED
 alt         %Text;         #REQUIRED
 name        NMTOKEN        #IMPLIED
 longdesc    %URI;          #IMPLIED
 height      %Length;       #IMPLIED
 width       %Length;       #IMPLIED
 usemap      %URI;          #IMPLIED
 ismap       (ismap)        #IMPLIED
 align       %ImgAlign;     #IMPLIED
 border      %Length;       #IMPLIED
 hspace      %Pixels;       #IMPLIED
 vspace      %Pixels;       #IMPLIED
 >

source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

For those who choose to question, what the word "REQUIRED" behind the two Attributes src and alt means, the W3C was so clever to make a clear and easy definition:
The term "REQUIRED" mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

Both attributes "src" and "alt" are a MUST for each <img> tag. In other words: All the other attributes are optional, but not the attributes "src" and "alt".

There are additional rules available, what you should do with decorative images (alt="") and that you should use the alternative text (alt attribute) for short text and that you can use an additional but optional longdesc attribute and the optional title attribute. I've posted a lot of links here, if you want to go further into this topic.

If you starts a HTML validator service and it says to you, your code is wrong, you should be able to look into the HTML syntax and repair your errors. It's really so easy to do. You need more time to read this thread and argument against it, instead of doing quick and easy your bug fixing.

Wrong attributes, wrong syntax of attributes and a wrong closing table tag (as I found recently in a HTML code) are in no case "false bugs". Those are syntax errors and the Webdesigner can be glad, that the customer does not know what invalid HTML code he received for his money.

Beside producing Web applications and Websites, my customers also often engage me as consultant, in order to help them with large Web projects (projectmanagement, inspection of code, security check, acceptance, you know the stuff...). Whenever I receive such a code from a supplier, I give it back to him with the words "Sorry, we can't accept that". Each customer is wise to do the same, until the HTML code is free from errors.

Remi