Question about saving HTML docs in Notepad

@bearMay 25.2003

I have been taught that when one saves a HTML document from Notepad to their hard drive to up load it. That it “Must” be saved with a file name ext; of .html or .htm ….. And also as “File Type” — “All Files”

I just had some one tell me they never saved anything as File Type “All Files” but as “Text Document”.

I just did test to check this out, and made a web page and saved it as File Name “test.html” and saved it as File Type “Text Document”, and it worked just like all the files I have saved as File Type “All Files”.

I checked several tutorials including W3C, and they all say you “Must” save your html files as File Type “All Files”.

[b]WHY??????????[/b] :confused:

to post a comment

HTML

59 Comments(s) _↴

@bearauthorMay 25.2003 — #Thanks Dave. This just got me wondering, everything I have ever read on this uses words like "You Must" or "You Have To" or "Dont Forget To" save your html document as "All Files".

Then I find out you don'y have to :rolleyes:

Still would like to know why everybody (99% of all the html tutorials and the ah err "Experts") all say you "MUST".........

Makes one wonder just how much of the "Must Do's" or "Can Not Do's" are true :confused:

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]I normally select "All Files," and type in the filename of my .html document, with quotes around it and the extension, ".html." It works for me to use quotes and save it as .html and have the "Save As Type... [.txt]" on, but I always do it the afformentioned way because it saves me time... I've wasted 20 minutes once because I couldn't figure out why the browser didn't translate the HTML document... Come to find out, it was a .html.txt document. :p[/color][/font][/b]

@bearauthorMay 26.2003 — #I want to thank everybody for your input on this.

And Dave, you may be right about trying to keep folks from getting into trouble...... I just did not know if maybe things worked different in different browsers or what the deal was. Thats why I asked the question.

 Jona, I have always saved my work with a .html ext; and as "All Files" and have never had any problems.  Never did use the "s before though.
 
   Anyway I think a lot of these so called rules are a lot of bunk.  Like they say you should not use java script because it dose not work for everybody.  Thats like saying you should not post a 55 MPH speed limit sign on the side of a highway because some people still use a horse & buggy and can not go that fast......... LOL
 
   Now I think I'm about to upset Charles (and maybe some others here), but they say you are not supposed to use tables to lay out a web page, because it causes problems with some people with disabilities. I went through W3C's pages on "Disibilities", and it seems to me that if you conform you web site to aid one type of disability you screw the others. 
 
  Like if you limit the pictures on the site to help the blind you are in fact making it harder for those with dyslexia to read your web site. And visa-versa.
 
   I have dyslexia and have learned to cope with it in the real world.  And you will notice in the real world (with the exceptions of a few wheel chair ramps & handi-cap parking places) no one builds their business, homes, or anything else with the idea of aiding those with disabilities. Those of "US" with disabilities have learned how to get along in this world and work with or around the little problems in life.
 
   With all that said, I say "why not use tables to lay out a web page".  Hell it works.......................

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by bear [/i]

[B] I have dyslexia and have learned to cope with it in the real world. And you will notice in the real world (with the exceptions of a few wheel chair ramps & handi-cap parking places) no one builds their business, homes, or anything else with the idea of aiding those with disabilities. Those of "US" with disabilities have learned how to get along in this world and work with or around the little problems in life.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[font=arial][b][color=maroon]This also applies with animals, who have adapted to their new environment. We have buildings, and birds live in them; but before "we" came, there were no buildings, and birds lived just fine, just the same; even though they probably prefer no buildings (or wait, they don't really have a preference except for naturally, but, you get the idea lol).

Anyways, I agree with you. I use tables to layout my sites. It makes the site look nice. And, although I'm not sure, but I don't think that Flash sites are compatible with blind or disabled people, are they? There are lots of things you can do with Flash, and lots of things you can't do without it. It's really neat and useful, but we can't use it because there are disabled people in this world? I have no problem with disabled people, but if they can't see, and they want to view a Web site, they should at least have someone with them to read it to them or something...[/color][/b][/font]

@bearauthorMay 26.2003 — #Jona, you have no idea how pleased I am to hear you say this. With all the bad mouthing here on using tables to layout a page I thought for sure I'ed be banned from the forum. And I really did not want that because I'm still new to all this computer stuff and web design. And have so much to learn, and this seemed to me to be a good place to get some real answers from those who use this stuff.

 I have read a dozen tuts but its still nice to talk to a real live person and get an answer to a question. Again thank you......

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Well, I don't think you would get banned for sharing your opinion. That's not exactly an offense--not in my opinion (lol!). I mean, Charles's opinion is not to use tables, but my opinion it to use them. If the page *looks* nice, then it's fine. Blind people can't really see it anyways, so... They'd probably be using a plain text browser or something like that.

Anyways, I'm glad you're learning. This forum is definitely the best place to get fast and very good answers. There's always someone here... ?[/color][/font][/b]

@NevermoreMay 26.2003 — #The problem with using tables is that it gets very confusing when it is read out in an aural browser, if the table has been used for positioning. This is because the browser assumes it has been used to store data, so reads it out as if it is data that follows a pattern. This can mean that your page is read out of order or mis-read. This will make your page instantly inaccessible to the blind. However, I do use tables for a few things, for example logins, where I know that really I shouldn't, purely because they do make it look good.

Also under (I think...) section II of the Americanse with Disablilities act you may be violating laws if you do not make an effort to make a commercial site accessible. A court case was recently won against the Olympic..,. people... because the Olympics website was inaccessible.

[i]Originally posted by bear[/i]

Anyway I think a lot of these so called rules are a lot of bunk. Like they say you should not use java script because it dose not work for everybody. Thats like saying you should not post a 55 MPH speed limit sign on the side of a highway because some people still use a horse & buggy and can not go that fast......... LOL[/QUOTE]

Not really. No-one is saying you shouldn't use JavaScript [b]at all[/b] (at least as far as I know), only that you should remember that some people can't use it. That just means ensuring that people can use your site without it - id est, don't use it for navigation or rely totally on popups. Most things can be coded do they are still usable without JavaScript. I think it is more like saying that you shouldn't post a minimum 55Mph speed limit, and then ban horse and cart users from going in cars.

[i]Originally posted by bear[/i]

Like if you limit the pictures on the site to help the blind you are in fact making it harder for those with dyslexia to read your web site. And visa-versa. [/QUOTE]

No problem with images if you use them poperly - alt text, longdesc, don't use them to show content above what you can see without seeing the images. Assuming that you're dyslexic, what problem is it that you are having with text online?

Just as an example of a JavaScript menu that you can use without JavaScript, try [URL]http://members.lycos.co.uk/cijori/index1.php[/URL].

The menu is made in JavaScript and expands when you click the 'header' links. However, that would have been inaccessible, so I added some PHP that lets you default it to open (in the accessiblity options). As you can see, the page was made for a school. The school is not for disabled people. But the extra coding I had to do didn't take long. Incidentally, the menu never went online.

@CharlesMay 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by bear [/i]

[B]...but they say you are not supposed to use tables to lay out a web page, because it causes problems with some people with disabilities. I went through W3C's pages on "Disibilities", and it seems to me that if you conform you web site to aid one type of disability you screw the others.[/B][/QUOTE]
[font=georgia]Keep on reading those pages, you seem to have completely misunderstood them. The whole purpose for the guidelines is "Ensuring Graceful Transformation" (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#transform-gracefully). And that means using all of the bells, whistles and even the fuzzy dice available to graphical browsers but doing it in a way that the page still works on every other kind of browser. Nowhere does it say that you should in any way limit your use of images on the web. And as you have noted, you are actually encouraged to use them as they aid some with cognitive disabilities. But you are required to use the "alt" attribute with the IMG element to make available any meaning that the image conveys. If your image says "W3C" (http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home) then your "alt" attribute should say "W3C". If your image is just some big red ball that just looks nice and doesn't add any meaning then the value of your "alt" attribute should be "".

I too have dyslexia and it's getting worse but I don't go about taking white canes away from the blind just because I'm able to cope without one. And when I build something I follow a very long list of ADA requirements. In a bathroom alone the doors have to be 30" wide with paddle style handles at a particular height. There must be a 30" diameter clear area so a wheel chair can turn around. Light switches, fixtures and accessories must be at particular heights. The toilet must have grab bars. You must be able to roll a wheel chair under the sinks and the piping under the sink must be insulated so that someone without feeling in their feet will not be burned. And the list goes on. Yes it's the law. But I would be a very cruel person indeed if I knowingly built some public space that didn't address the needs of the disabled to crap.

Those accessibility rules are there for a reason. And they represent a great deal of thought and experimentation done by a lot of people who are a lot smarter than you and I. To ignore them isn't just cruel, it's hubris.

And just to be clear, when you " conform you web site to aid one type of disability" you in no way "screw the others." The others aren't even going to notice.[/font]

@NevermoreMay 26.2003 — #I think I should clarify the use of alt text, since it is easy to use it, but also easy to get carried away. When writing a page, their is [B]no need[/B] to use alt text if the image doesn't have any meaning. When using an audio browser, too much alt text can be almost as bad as none; especially where images have been divided into slices, and the 'helpful' webmaster has labelled each of them 'slice x of a large image of a crab.'

@CharlesMay 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by cijori [/i]

[B]I think I should clarify the use of alt text, since it is easy to use it, but also easy to get carried away. When writing a page, their is [B]no need[/B] to use alt text if the image doesn't have any meaning. [/B][/QUOTE] [font=georgia]That is quite wrong and the 'alt' attribute is [b][i]required[/i][/b] (http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG with the IMG attribute with good reason. In the absence of an "alt" text non-graphical browsers typically present the word "image" in place of the image. To suppress that you need to specify an value of "". (http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt) You are quite right, though, that you must be careful about the content of the attribute when you do use it. The best test is to run the page through Lynx (http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html) or some other non-graphical browser. The "alt" text needs to make sense in the context of the page as it is read. [/font]

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Cijori, actually your images [i]must[/i] have alt tags, however, just put nothing in it. According to the W3C (and Charles) if your image has no meaning use this: <img src="file.jpg" [i]alt=""[/i]> and I agree with Charles in this case, because he is right. If you have ever validated your pages, even in the Transitional DTD, you'll find that it is required that your tag has an alt attribute--whether or not it has a value.

Back to the main topic, however, Charles, since I have no knowledge on this subject--up until now, do you think it would be appropriate to provide a link for the blind?[/color][/font][/b]

@CharlesMay 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Jona [/i]

[B][D]o you think it would be appropriate to provide a link for the blind? [/B][/QUOTE] [font=georgia]I'm not quite sure what it is that mean by that. If you are asking if you should have separate pages for each different combination of ability and disability, then the answer would be no. It's really easy, and a bit fun, to make one page that works on all browsers.[/font]

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Is that so? Hmmm.. How would I test my sites to see if they work for "blind" browsers? My documents are all valid HTML 4.01 Transitional, and I checked the Lynx link you gave me and the page looks fine in a text-browser...[/color][/font][/b]

@NevermoreMay 26.2003 — #With the (notable) exception of my new site, evernet, all my pages have been made in completely valid HTML 4.01 strict, have passed the Priority A W3C guidelines and have been section 508 compliant.

However, some of my best friends are 'visually challenged' (by which I don't mean ugly), and have found that it is almost impossible to use sites that make use of graphics and have over-alt texted them. While I agree it is important to use alt text and longdesc in images, it is the scale to which you should use the that I am no longer sure about. I now try to provide very very short descriptions of the less important graphics on my pages, even if this doesn't provide as much information as I might like to give. When browsers start to support the longdesc attribute, this will get easier.

About two weeks ago, I listened to a few pages on an audio browser, and found that I was navigating away from pages with a lot of graphics [b]especially[/b] where they used alt text, because before you got to any 'useful content', you tended to have to listen to a lot of superfluous image description.

Jona, since I am not trying to make a page work, it already works, what is the point of putting blank alt text? Sure, it allows me to cheat my way through the validator, display the icons and look good, but it isn't actually any better than not adding any alt text at all.

@CharlesMay 26.2003 — #[font=georgia]Let's use http://www.computermasterminds.tk/ as an example.

The first check, for a sighted web author, is to run the thing through Lynx. The first thing we notice is the "[INLINE]" keeps showing up indicating a lack of the "alt" attribute. We also notice that the navigation menu is at the top of the page. Persons listening to the page sequentially really don't want to hear the same list over again each time they hit the page. That should either be at the end of the page or a "skip navigation" link should appear at the top. Then there's the "This site is best viewed..." Not as bad as the guy who used as his "alt" text "Turn your images back on" but close.

The next check is to look under the hood checking for the proper use of HTML. Note the use of tables for layout, bad, very bad and the use of presentational mark up. [font=monospace]<big>Welcome to CMM!</big>[/font] instead of [font=monospace]<h4>Welcome to CMM!</h4>[/font] is also really bad.

And, of course, the page should e valid HTML or XHTML which that page is not.

I certainly wouldn't hire them to make a web page.[/font]

@Dark_DragonMay 26.2003 — #Y'know..earlier someone was mentioning the merits of using or not using tables and Javascript....however it has been my expereince that many browsers are not required to adhere to any kind of standard so a particular Javascript may work in say, Internet Exploder, may not work in Netscrape....

Though I can understand in some ways why one doesn't want to use tables...they are nice but kind of restricting in some ways....layers are cool too but again the problem lies in the fact that not all browsers ([I]even new ones[/I]) understand layers...

However I use frames and tables because I don't understand Javascript and because if i did use Javascript, I cannot test it on another browser since I only have Exploder.

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]I've always learned that you add whatever the validator says to. ?

I've never really even thought about audio browsers.... Until now (thanks a lot, bear :p).[/color][/font][/b]

@CharlesMay 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by cijori [/i]

[B]...it isn't actually any better than not adding any alt text at all. [/B][/QUOTE][font=georgia]As I've noted, [font=monospce]alt=""[/font] [i]is[/i] the way to specify no "alt" text at all. Some browsers have default texts that you need to override.[/font]

@NevermoreMay 26.2003 — #The problem really is that it is a lot easier to use tables for layout rather than CSS [B]because frontpage likes it.[/B]. The day Microsoft become standards compliant will be the start of a more accessible web.

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]

Charles, you're absolutely right. You'd have to validate http://jagged-rocks.bravepages.com/ instead of http://computermasterminds.tk/ because the "tk" is "free" and use actually a frameset. You're right about my invalid HTML. But I was talking about my client's sites--those are all done in valid HTML: http://sonoracabinets.com/ for example. Although, if you validate the page (in Transitional), you'll notice this error: End tag for element "A" which is not open, because the validator does not read Javascript. I have not extensively used Javascript, I have only used it to prevent getting spam. And if users have Javascript disabled, there is still a contact form they can use for email.

I've not validated my pages in the Strict DTD, though I wonder what it would come out as...

Dark Dragon, I make practice of using tables and Javascript, yet providing alternatives for users without it. You take the above example, for instance... The user may not have Javascript, so he won't be able to see the "email us" links, however, there is a contact form. I know it's a lame example, but I so hate spam, that I decided to do it anyways. Also, I think you meant, "exporer" not, "exploder." :p [/color][/font][/b]

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Personally, I'm still the same as when I came here--although more advanced (lol). I still use Notepad to make my pages. I don't use FrontPage or Dreamweaver. I might use Dreamweaver in the future, but only to "easily" come up with a way for the site to look--but I would still write the code out on my own in Notepad.

I agree, though, that when and if Microsoft becomes standards compliant, and stays with (rather than trying to get ahead of) the 8-ball, the World Wide Web would be better off, because Microsoft is such a large company.[/color][/font][/b]

@Dark_DragonMay 26.2003 — #A Email link using HTML code is different from using JavaScript to make the same link, right?

All I am saying is that each browser reads ([I]or respectivelty NOT reads[/I]) Javascript the same way...for example on one site I made, I tried to use Javascript to make marquee text in a table...worked fine when I used on web making program but didn't work in another...

This was another snag I ran into as well..I tried learning to use FrontPage and certain Javascript codes worked in FrontPage but not in Dreamweaver, conversely what may have worked in Dreamweaver was non-functional in FrontPage.

So either way you're apparently doomed....either the browsers give you grief or the web making programs will use or read Javascript differently.

Why, oh why is there no standardizations in both browsers and web making programs??????

And yes Jona..I purposely called Explorer as [I]Exploder[/I]. ?

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Yes. In HTML users without Javascript can see the link, and spam-robots cannot see the link. Otherwise, I'd make it in HTML, but basically all I did was document.write("<a href="+mailto+user+at+domain">"+user+at+domain+"</a>"); of course, where mailto, user, at and domain are all variables containing respective string values.

Why do you call IE Exploder? I think it's really great. Even if it's not standards compliant, it has much more to offer than Netscape, Mozilla, or Opera does.[/color][/font][/b]

@Dark_DragonMay 26.2003 — #Eh, I don't know...I guess one of my college instructors calls it that and it is kinda amusing....though because it is a Microsoft product I am becoming more concerned with security or the lack thereof...Explorer is okay I guess...but admittedly better than Netscrape though.

I did try Netscrape once and it was so confusing to use that I dumped it a half hour after I downloaded it...

However I would like to try Opera or something else someday too.

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Opera is sort of the same thing as Internet Explorer... Just a little different. lol I've never tried it, but from what I hear, it's IE without any plugins.. :-p[/color][/font][/b]

@Dark_DragonMay 26.2003 — #Without any Plugins, huh?

Sounds kinda limited..oh wait, I suppose you'd have to download them all perhaps?

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Okay, I think you misunderstood. I meant, "Microsoft-specific" plugins. Like the page-transitions and stuff like that. ?[/color][/font][/b]

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Charles, are you still here? I was wondering if there was a way if I could test my client sites in an audio browser or at least know if it worked right or not. The sites look fine in a text-browser, so they should work fine in an audio browser, right?[/color][/font][/b]

@AdamGundryMay 26.2003 — #Even if it's not standards compliant, [IE] has much more to offer than Netscape, Mozilla, or Opera does.[/QUOTE]I use both IE and Mozilla, and find the latter is by far the better in terms of standards compliance and features. Especially as a web designer, tools such as the Javascript Console and sidebar are really useful. What do you think IE has that Mozilla doesn't?

If only some web developers (I'm not referring to anyone in particular) would design for all browsers via standards, rather than just IE, I think the web would become much more accessible and useful.

Adam

@NevermoreMay 26.2003 — #Yeah, I like, and use, Mozilla over IE, although I have IE, Netscape (V. 7 and 4), Opera and Lynx, plus a [B]really bad[/B] Mac browser emulator, that lets you emulate browsing with a number of Mac browsers.

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]I didn't say that IE is more standards compliant. I said it is [i]not[/i]. I like the browser itself, as a personal preference. But I make all of my pages compatible with every browser, nevertheless.[/color][/font][/b]

@NevermoreMay 26.2003 — #
I didn't say that IE is more standards compliant. I said it is not.[/QUOTE]
Ummm. no-one said anything different...

have you tried the new version of Mozilla? It's really improved since last year.

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Unfortunately, I haven't been able to download it yet, because I still have not gotten my hard drive in. The one I'm currently using is extremely small--too small.[/color][/font][/b]

@CharlesMay 26.2003 — #[font=georgia]Let's take a quick look at http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/os.php

1) Your page should validate, no excuses.

2) The Lynx test: http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsonoracabinets.com%2F

I note a repetitive bunch of links at the top of the page. You need a "skip navigation" link or, better yet, get those links at the bottom of the page. And your "alt" text for the logo is inconsistent across the site.

3) Under the hood.

Fails miserably. You are using tables for lay out and other logical mark up for presentation. The H1 element does not mean "big, bold letters". It means "level one heading." As a sighted person, I can quickly scan headings in a page and get to the information that I seek. Some audio and Braille browsers, and the graphical browser Opera, allow the user to "tab through" the headings but only if the headings are properly marked up.

That's just the big issues. There are lots of little ones, like the link with the text "here". One way non-visualy browsers help users get around on a page is with an option of presenting a list of the links on the page (Ctrl-J in Opera). Link texts need to be unique and meaningful out of context.[/font]

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Hmmm... So you're saying that I need to not use tables? Tell me what to do... I don't want to change the look of the site by not using tables, though. I mean, I'd rather have the majority who can see it, see a nice site, rather than the minority who cannot see it, hear an ugly one.[/color][/font][/b]

@bearauthorMay 26.2003 — #Ok lets see if I follow you here, if I post an image of my aunt Gertrud, then I should use the alt like

alt="a picture of my aunt Gertrud"

Ok I think I have that, But lets take a web site I know of, I think its called "Bobals Smileys", where he has close to 1,000 images of different types of smilies. Animated, non-animated, backgrounds, Etc! Should there be an alt atrubute in each tag?

@khakiMay 26.2003 — #1,000 images of different types of smilies. Animated, non-animated, backgrounds, Etc! Should there be an alt atrubute in each tag?[/QUOTE] is that a rhetorical question? ?

how about this one:

if i write a lot of really long content-filled pages, do i need to use all of the proper tags... or only on the short and simple ones? ?

as Charles has already stated:

"Your page should validate, no excuses".

just sayin' ? ....

? k

[I]EDIT: by the way....

I'm not a snob about it.

Validated pages are "the goal".

I never make claims that all my pages vailidate (but my goal it to see that they eventually will).

that's all ? [/I]

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Actually my pages validate, but I guess audio browsers read slowly. I think it would be, as Charles put it, "fun," to make it work for all of them.

Charles, do you have a portfolio or anything to show the sites you've made? I'd like to see some examples.[/color][/font][/b]

@bearauthorMay 26.2003 — #khaki, that was not a rhetorical question, (there is a web site with that many smiles on it) and I was not trying to be a smart ass. I asked the question because I know that sometimes one can put certain types of information in the HEAD section of an html document. You'll have to forgive me, but not everyone (myself included) is as smart as you. I'm just learning things, and if my questions seem stupid to you, then I'm sorry.............

 I want to learn how to do things the right way, and if I have to ask stupid questions to do it, so be it.  At least the answer Charles gave me (although some of it went over my head) made sence....... (as opposed to being cynical)

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Not to be mean, "bear," but don't think that someone is smarter than you just because they didn't get what you said... If you would've taken that IQ test from the UK, you would've seen that....

P.S. Not really, khaki, I don't mean it... Seriously, I don't. It's just a joke. You're not stupid. Seriously...[/color][/font][/b]

@bearauthorMay 26.2003 — #Hi Jona, I'm not the smartest person in the world, and God knows I have a lot to learn about this cyber world were in. But I know I'm not stupid.

Khaki said ..............................
[i]is that a rhetorical question?

how about this one:

if i write a lot of really long content-filled pages, do i need to use all of the proper tags... or only on the short and simple ones?[/i]

Since khaki was being cynical I thought I would be to.

@JonaMay 26.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Well, that's okay--I think. ?[/color][/font][/b]

@CharlesMay 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by bear [/i]

[B] Should there be an alt atrubute in each tag? [/B][/QUOTE] [font=georgia]Yes, there must always be an "alt" attribute. But, as I might have mentioned, it can be simply [font=monospace]alt=""[/font]

If your picture of your Auntie Gertrude, or my Auntie Gertrude - that reminds me, I ought to give her a call - conveys any information then that information ought to be the value of the "alt" attribute. In other words, just make sure that it works in Lynx.[/font]

@khakiMay 27.2003 — #ugh.... gimme a break :rolleyes:

suddenly i'm cynical?

why... because i think that you asked a question that had already been previously discussed (and which you yourself already answered)?

okay... so let's back up a bit.

if I post an image of my aunt Gertrud, then I should use the alt like

alt="a picture of my aunt Gertrud" [/QUOTE]

my verified non-cynical response to that at this point:

yes... you understand that.

so now let's exchange the name "smiley" with the name "aunt Gertrud"....

1,000 different images of "aunt Gertrud". Animated, non-animated, backgrounds, Etc! Should there be an alt atrubute in each tag?[/QUOTE]

my verified non-cynical reaction to that question:

huh?

I [I]still[/I] don't get your question :rolleyes:

do I think that you are "stupid" (your word, not mine)... No

do I think that you are being a "smart-ass" (your word, not mine)... ummm... i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and say no.

but... (since name-calling has been introduced)...

i'll just say that I thought that you were being "cute"

but... go ahead...

play the woe is me, khaki called me stupid role.

:rolleyes:

1 + 1 = 2

1,000 + 1,000 = hmmmm....

maybe i [I]am[/I] cynical after all :eek:

so... did you really want an answer to that question?

okay

a page contains ONE image of aunt Gertrude:

<img src="auntieG_one.jpg" alt="image of Aunt Gertrude">

a different page contains ONE THOUSAND images of aunt Getrude:

<img src="auntieG_one.jpg" alt="image 1 of Aunt Gertrude">

<img src="auntieG_two.jpg" alt="image 2 of Aunt Gertrude">

...

<img src="auntieG_onehundred.jpg" alt="image 100 of Aunt Gertrude">

....

<img src="auntieG_ninehundredninetynine.jpg" alt="image 999 of Aunt Gertrude">

<img src="auntieG_onethousand.jpg" alt="image 1,000 of Aunt Gertrude">

because (all cuteness aside)...

how would someone who relies on the alt attribute know what the 1,000 images are unless you offer a description for them.

but.... something tells me that if I actually had written [I]that[/I] instead of asking if you were posing a rhetorical question...

you may have accused me of being condescending instead of cynical.

I wasn't trying to [I]be[/I] anything (helpful maybe... although poorly executed, i suppose ? ).

and just for the record:

i didn't think that the question was stupid...

but i [I]did[/I] think that the question was not genuine.

my error.

i apologize for that.

? k

@nkaisareMay 27.2003 — #I don't think going into the debate of making accessible pages on each and every thread helps. I was surprized on seeing "saving HTML in notepad" thread going into 4th page. Wow!

Khaki, to answer your question - if I had a page with 100 pictures of Aunt Gertrud, I wouldn't bother too much with alt for the following reason:

Its a page with pictures. Pictures IS the content there. Non-visual browsers, search engines, visually-challenged people only need to know that this page contains 100 images of the aunt. Thats all. I will use <img src="aunt34.jpg" [b]alt=""[/b]>

@CharlesMay 27.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by nkaisare [/i]

[B]I don't think going into the debate of making accessible pages on each and every thread helps. [/B][/QUOTE] [font=georgia]While I appreciate your concern over threads spinning out of control, to say that a page is accessible is simply to say that it works. And making pages work is what we are all about here. As someone speaking of the web once put it, I can't rember who, "Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect."[/font]

@khakiMay 27.2003 — #yes Niket...

i agree with that (Charles had already covered that aspect).

i was just using bear's exaggerated example to make a point that the [I]number[/I] of images on a page does not necessarily exempt the author of a page from the necessity of offering alt descriptions for all qualifying images.

after all... not even a fully-sighted surfer on a high-speed connection is going to wait for 1,000 pictures of aunt Gertrude to load (no matter how sweet she may be ? ).... so that particular example was obviously not a good one (and i couldn't locate the "smiley" page using Google to see if the alts were declared as [B]alt=""[/B])

my points are badly missing their mark in this thread, i guess.

but i do want to say that turning every thread into an accessibility issue is not really what is happening here. It's really a "validation" issue in this case (and accessibility is the end-result)

(although the act of noodle-whipping every javascript thread by continually stating that 10% of users .... blah, blah, blah. well... it's a javascript forum for crying-out-loud!!!! :rolleyes: )

the one point that i was really trying to make here was to encourage people to try to write pages that will validate.

and before i write anything else that interferes with that point... i will now shut-up :rolleyes:

good intentions... bad execution....

? k

@NevermoreMay 27.2003 — #(Charles, I think its in your signature...)

Oh, right, sarcasm...

@JonaMay 27.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Whew! I don't know what happened overnight, but whatever it was.. I missed something (the dots are yours, khaki).

Niket, from what you said, I would have to agree with you. If you had 1,000 pictures of your Aunt Gertrud, it would be a personal page, so you would just have text at the top: 1,000 images of my Aunt, and just have your images with alt=""

[/color][/font][/b]

@khakiMay 27.2003 — #yes Jona...

(didn't i just say, "yes Niket"? lol)...

BUT....

if there is a site such as AT&T Wireless, or Nextel Communications, or Sprint...

and they had 25 images of the cell-phones that they offer...

they would need to include a description with the image (regardless of how many cell-phones they offer).

so please (!) forget about aunt Gertrude. She was an admittedly bad example (and i never cared much for her anyway.... always squeezing my cheeks, and telling me to sit-up straight, and telling me to move my hair away from my face, and all of that :rolleyes: )

the point was not aunt Gertrude...

it was to provide alt descriptions on EVERY image that qualifies as an image that requires identification. Those that don't, get alt="".

that's all.

:rolleyes:

don't own the dots.... they own me....

? k

@JonaMay 27.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Ok, so I'll borrow the dots. ?

And I was explaining, in my own way, what Niket said. And I agree with you, if Sprint had a page with 25 different phones, they should have a detailed description of each. Because it not only allows the non-visual browsers to "see," but it increases the ranking of the page/site in search engines--which is a big plus for any company's Web site--especially a big company.

Again, I'm only stressing my point, not trying to take the credit for what someone else said. ?

Gotta love the dots... (I'm so starting act like you, khaki, you're rubbing off on me!)[/color][/font][/b]

[b]Jona[/b]

@khakiMay 27.2003 — #Gotta love the dots... (I'm so starting act like you, khaki, you're rubbing off on me!) [/QUOTE] a collective cringe has just gone out over the internet :eek:

(oh no... i've ruined another!)

? k

@JonaMay 27.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]lol....[/color][/font][/b]

? [b]Jona[/b]

@bearauthorMay 27.2003 — #Khaki, again the reason I asked the question in the first place was because I know sometimes there are tags one can put into the HEAD of an html document that will controll the entire Body of the html document. Or in other words "is there a way to tell a browser that a web page is nothing but images, without taging each image?

 As far as a 1000 images of aunt Gertrud, I never said that. I said there was a web site that had close to a 1000 images of Smiley Faces on it. You said that you dont think anybody would wait for that many images to download. Well according to the hit counter there has been 726,765 visitors to that site, so I'm not the only one willing to wait for it to download. You stated that you could not find the site, like you did not believe it was real, Well here is the URL http://www.bulls2.com/indexb/smileys.html to that web site. And I looked at his source code. There is no alt in any of his image tags.  I have viewed 100's if not 1000's of source codes containing img tags and have never seen the alt in one yet. 
 
   Now I know about the software the blind use to read a web site I can understand (and agree with) the use of the alt being added to an image tag. Maks sence to me anyway. But the question about having a page with 1000's of images on it was not an exaggerated example. ( I have seen several) It was ment in earnest.
 
   If I have offended you I'm sorry, and my question to some one who knoes all this stuff may have seen useless but to a beginner like me it was not.
 
   Again, I'm sorry, I never ment to get into throwing insults. I,m not that way (really). But you will have to admit your responce to my question was a little cynical. I'll admit it may have seemed hard to believe, a 1000 images on one page, but they are there. And a lot of people use his site.
 
   You know maybe I worded the question wrong in the first place. Guess I should have asked if there was some way to set a html document as an image page so a browser would know there was no text there........
 
   With all that said my friend (and I hope we can be friends) lets you and I start all over and forget all this.
 
   Well Hello Khaki, my name is bear, glade to meet you.:)

@JonaMay 27.2003 — #[b][font=arial][color=maroon]Personally I wouldn't go through all of the trouble to make a page with 1,000 images. I don't think there is any meta tag or anything like that, that will tell the browser that the page is nothing but images, so what I would do is use alt="" or alt="First smiley" and so on. Of course, I would use PHP or something to generate the page for me--ya know, some kind of a loop or something that would just keep going until it got to 1,000. Might be a load on the server... So what I'd do is use the server-side generated page and save it and upload it in the place of the PHP (or other server-side language you want to use) file. Of course, if you ever wanted to update it you'd have to run the PHP file again, because the source code would be very large--the page would be dynamically update though.. Hmmm... I guess it's a matter of preference.[/color][/font][/b]

[b]Jona[/b]

@nkaisareMay 27.2003 — #In case of 25 cell phone images on a page example, I see no harm in alt=""... for the cell phone images carry a meaning only for visual browsers. What is important is that the remaining text, form elements and paraphernelia makes sense even without the images.

@NevermoreMay 27.2003 — #That assumes that you put pictures of cell phone on your site for decoration, where they're more likely to be being used as a catalogue. So, in the case of cell phones, I would use alt="A picture of a ..."

@khakiMay 27.2003 — # Well Hello Khaki, my name is bear, glade to meet you. ? [/QUOTE]hello bear... i usually don't step on people's feet when i dance...

but this thread has me off my rythme for some reason.

(and if I'm allowed an alibi.. I'll blame it on the long rainy weekend ? )

I've seen that smiley site before (and I [I]believed you[/I] when you said that it existed ? .... I just couldn't find it on Google using "Bobals Smileys"... that's all).

It really does take a long time to load... (and I scoot around on cable :eek: )

but i've grabbed smileys off of that site before... so the load-time is secondary to the quest (for that particular content).

The site itself is a mess (source code). The only image with an alt description is the one that was imported as part of the site meter.

There are also a lot of </a> without any <a> at all.

But... great smiley collection ? !!!

And as far as my response goes:

maybe it could be interpretted as "cynical" ? ...

but in reality... it was just a poorly phrased analogy.

And in truth... I didn't start putting alt descriptions on every image on my pages until I started trying to validate my pages.

My point though.... was that there should be no "lazy way out" just because it would take a long time to do it correctly.

I guess that it came out sounding differently though (?).

and i take total credit/blame for the aunt Gertrude thing. I never insinuated otherwise.

So...

to make this post "instructive" in regard to your question:

the guy who wrote the smiley page only needs to do a find/replace to add the [B]alt=""[/B] to the page:

Find [B]<img src=http://www.bulls2.[/B]

Replace with [B]<img alt="" src=http://www.bulls2.[/B]

...and then he is all set on that issue (and it will take only a matter of seconds!).

and just so you know...

i really don't make any claims of being so smart (you're new here... aren't you? ? lol).

I'm still learning like most everybody else here (it's just that i have a thicker skull than most... well... according to Charles I do! ? )

anyway...

friends?

sure ?

? k

@jeffmottMay 27.2003 — #This is a reply to something that was said much earlier in the thread.[b]If you are asking if you should have separate pages for each different combination of ability and disability, then the answer would be no. It's really easy, and a bit fun, to make one page that works on all browsers.[/b][/quote]There are occasions where tables may be required to create a certain visual design. If someone were to hand you a complex picture and your job was to develop a page whose design matched the picture, I don't believe browser implementations of CSS would be able to handle all cases. This seems mostly caused by Microsoft, in particular unsupported properties and its mysterious 3px gap. But many of these problems are also obvious as you begin testing in older versions of any browser. If a need does arise where you absolutely must use tables to create the design, the very first thing on the page should be a link to a text only version, which should consist of only properly structured HTML elements. And if SSI is used to include the real content for each page then you would still be able to update both site versions in one place.

Also in #HTML _↴

Contact page <div> Text link without changing position on page?ActiveX control in IE7

Success!

Help @bear spread the word by sharing this article on Twitter...

Tweet This

Question about saving HTML docs in Notepad

59 Comments(s) _↴

Also in #HTML _↴

Success!

Social

Version

Question about saving HTML docs in Notepad

59 Comments(s) ↴

Also in #HTML ↴

Success!

The web is an endless sea of information. Don't miss the boat... Subscribe!

Social

Version

59 Comments(s) _↴

Also in #HTML _↴