71–80 of 82 posts
> All have height and width set (Don't specify px or %) So what unit should be used?
(They generally assume these values are in pixels by default[1])
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/im...
> Alternative text: High All have an alternative text which describe the image visually. Please don't do that. Don't put an alt on ALL images. Screen readers will read all of them. Skin and flavour images don't deserve to be read outloud. Nobody wants to hear "bottom left corner of logo" or "rounded corner".
This recommendation would be fine 20 years ago. You should not have any decorative images in your markup, they belong to CSS.
Should you add an alt to a stock photo?
Should you disturb a user with a reading of "stock photo of a business man smiling" next to a sales paragraph? What about "sunset over a mountain" on a page for a SaaS website?
> Alternative text: High All have an alternative text which describe the image visually. Please don't do that. Don't put an alt on ALL images. Screen readers will read all of them. Skin and flavour images don't deserve to be read outloud. Nobody wants to hear "bottom left corner of logo" or "rounded corner".
Seconding this. It very much depends on the purpose of the image. If an image or any other tag is extraneous in a screen reader context use the `aria-hidden`[1] attribute to exclude it. A good example is an image used as an icon next to a text label. Imagine a link/button that contains the words "Save" and a floppy disk icon. There's no need to have an alt of "Save" on the icon as the text "Save" is already present.…
'aria-hidden' is for HTML elements that don't have their own way of hiding themselves from assistive technologies and for cases where you'll use JavaScript to change the element's hidden state. I can't think of a situation where you'd want to conditionally show and hide only an image only from screen readers but if you had that situation, toggling aria-hidden would be better than adding and removing the alt attribute's value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Style is separate from content. ie. Screen readers/robots don't care about gradients etc.
I'm not seeing any practical benefits mentioned so this sounds like dogmatism to me. Using an img tag can sometimes just be more practical (e.g. if you're using a CMS or for use with a JS plugin). Google Image search definitely cares about images as well. I agree separating style from content has benefits but doing this at all costs isn't worth the time in my opinion and a few img tags seem harmless to me. It reminds…
Imagine reading a printed text page about dogs and peppered throughout the text was mentions of 'bezel flare 2' or similar. If it doesn't make sense for that to be on the page as text alone then it shouldn't be on the page at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This recommendation would be fine 20 years ago. You should not have any decorative images in your markup, they belong to CSS.
Agreed but it does happen. Sometimes, the line between content and decorative it pretty thin. Should you add an alt to a stock photo? Should you disturb a user with a reading of "stock photo of a business man smiling" next to a sales paragraph? What about "sunset over a mountain" on a page for a SaaS website?
The goal is not so much to make the best experience for the assistive technology user but to provide as close to the same experience as possible, bullshit marketing crap and all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not seeing any practical benefits mentioned so this sounds like dogmatism to me. Using an img tag can sometimes just be more practical (e.g. if you're using a CMS or for use with a JS plugin). Google Image search definitely cares about images as well. I agree separating style from content has benefits but doing this at all costs isn't worth the time in my opinion and a few img tags seem harmless to me. It reminds…
Practical benefit: users and search engines parse the content of the page for information about the subject matter, including Google Images. I agree having an img with an empty alt tag is OK, but it's not helping search optimization and neither is alt=round corner gradient (unless of course that is your subject matter :-) Imagine reading a printed text page about dogs and peppered throughout the text was mentions of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practical benefit: users and search engines parse the content of the page for information about the subject matter, including Google Images. I agree having an img with an empty alt tag is OK, but it's not helping search optimization and neither is alt=round corner gradient (unless of course that is your subject matter :-) Imagine reading a printed text page about dogs and peppered throughout the text was mentions of…
It just doesn't sound significant to me. Crawlers and screen readers happily ignore div and span tags that add nothing to the content, they ignore mobile scaling meta tags in the head etc.
Actually the meta viewport "Helps Google’s algorithms accurately assign indexing properties to the page rather than needing to signal the existence of corresponding desktop/mobile pages." [1]
Every bit of code on a page is interpreted a certain way for a reason. HTML5 now has more semantic tags like header and nav that add an additional layer of certainty over context. I'll concede that most developers seem to not care about the reasons why so long as they can push code to production faster.
[1] https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/mobile-seo...
Following this list is a great way to never launch something into production.
I've helped a friend to publish a one-page website over the weekend, and I believe it follows most of this checklist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Style is separate from content. ie. Screen readers/robots don't care about gradients etc.
I'm not seeing any practical benefits mentioned so this sounds like dogmatism to me. Using an img tag can sometimes just be more practical (e.g. if you're using a CMS or for use with a JS plugin). Google Image search definitely cares about images as well. I agree separating style from content has benefits but doing this at all costs isn't worth the time in my opinion and a few img tags seem harmless to me. It reminds…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not seeing any practical benefits mentioned so this sounds like dogmatism to me. Using an img tag can sometimes just be more practical (e.g. if you're using a CMS or for use with a JS plugin). Google Image search definitely cares about images as well. I agree separating style from content has benefits but doing this at all costs isn't worth the time in my opinion and a few img tags seem harmless to me. It reminds…
So sad http://www.csszengarden.com/ is already forgotten :(