Given the following link to an image:
Title
What is the most semantically sound method for indicating the location of a thumbnail?
The best I could come up with so far is using data- attributes like so:
Title
However, it doesn't seem very semantically sound. Is there a better or more correct way to do this?
Why not use an <img> element? You can give it a class to indicate that it's a thumbnail and hide it with progressive enhancement if you need to. That way, the thumbnail of the image will be shown in the absence of JavaScript/CSS:
<a href="path/to/img.jpg">
<img src="path/to/thumbnail.jpg" class="thumb" alt="Thumbnail" />
Title
</a>
Or am I being too naïve?
Title
Simple and keeps the original path intact while just adding a suffix to indicate that the image is a thumbnail. We use this all the time on our sites and it makes things easy.
Related
This question is about Accessibility.
Here is my code:
<a href="https://example.com/url-to-details">
<img src="https://example.com/item.png" alt="some description">
</a>
some description
It's not perfect, as we know we should avoid Adjacent links go to the same URL (this is what the WAVE accessibility tool says for me on my webpage about this piece of code).
With another words, the problem here is you use th Tab key consequently and still appear on the same link. This is not perfect.
My solution is to set tabindex="-1" for one of the links.
So, my questions are:
1. is it a good idea, or you have a better approach?
2. Which code is better from the Accessibility point of view:
<a href="https://example.com/url-to-details" tabindex="-1">
<img src="https://example.com/item.png" alt="some description">
</a>
some description
or
<a href="https://example.com/url-to-details">
<img src="https://example.com/item.png" alt="some description">
</a>
some description
P.S. There is a 3rd approach: to unite two <a></a><a></a> into one such as <a> picture + some description</a>, but I would avoid it for some reasons.
P.P.S. The description text "some description" is equal for both the image description and the text in the anchor tag.
I don't see a use case for having both an image link and an adjacent textual link that use the same URL. It should be a single link, so you have three options:
get rid of the image link,
get rid of the textual link,
combine the image and the text into a single link, where the image has an empty alt attribute:
<img src="https://example.com/item.png" alt=""> some description
In the third case, the alt attribute should be empty in order to avoid duplication of text (screen reader users don't want to hear the link text twice). This also results in simpler code that does not rely on tabindex="-1". See also WCAG Technique H2: Combining adjacent image and text links for the same resource.
Note that using two adjacent links, both with the href attribute and one of them having tabindex=-1, as proposed in the question, will result in both links being listed in a screen reader's list of links. This duplication should be avoided.
Assuming that your alt description should be equal to your link text is a misguided approach, in my opinion.
Let's say you are designing a products list page for an online store.
If the link goes to a product detail page, then the link text should describe that detail page. However, the image alt should describe the image itself, not the detail page.
.link {
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
align-items: center;
}
<a class="link" href="https://www.mywebsite.org/detail-page-100">
<img class="link-img" src="https://picsum.photos/200" alt="2 puppies running through a meadow in the summer sun">
<span class="link-desc">Buy organic pet food - 5kg</span>
</a>
The tabindex only changes the keyboard order, but screen reader will still announce the same link twice.
Making the img clickable using javascript will avoid annoying keyboard users or screenreader users, letting mouse users click on the image itself.
From a purely WCAG accessibility point of view, nothing has to change in the original code. That fact that WAVE points it out is just an artifact of that tool. It's not an error, but an "alert" (in WAVE terms). The doc for WAVE says this about "alerts":
The goal should not be to get rid of all icons, except for the errors. Alerts will require close scrutiny - the[y] likely represent an end user issue.
The key being that alerts are "end user" issues, meaning usability or user experience issues. Not accessibility failures.
So, if you're trying to comply to WCAG AA, having a redundant link is not a failure and does not have to be fixed. But if you're looking at the user experience, reducing the number of tab stops and links that point to the same destination is always a good thing.
How you fix that issue seems to be the crux of the OP. When two links that are adjacent point to the same location, the best way is to combine the links into one. Adding tabindex="-1" to one is generally a bad idea because that only affects keyboard users and not screen reader users.
I would keep them both, because if a person using a screen reader is tabbing through your website you would like them to hear the image description as well as the text in the anchor tag.
The correct answer is - it depends.
If your image better describes your link, then use the image.
If your anchor tag better describes it - then use the <a>.
Some info for tabindex
Please see all the accessibility you can add to a link here
<a href='' itemscope itemtype='http://schema.org/Brand' itemprop='brand'><i class="logo" itemprop='logo'></i></a>
The above class='logo' applies a font to the icon element. Can we apply the 'glyph' defined in the class (e.g., font-family: 'AnyFont'; content: '/e600') as a Microdata Markup DataType "Brand > Logo" to render the Logo in a rich-snippet the same as a image would render in the rich-snippet?
This doesn't seem likely as an image has a URL based src="..." property and a font character does not, none the less I've been researching this I've found no documentation or discussion on this and need to know if the community is aware of a way to make this work if it does't already work. Or do we have to forfeit the many well-known benefits of using an icon-font to display a logo in rich-snippets?
As validation to the common application of microdata to an image and not an font-character we see that this heavily used microdata generator doesn't give us an option to apply microdata to an element with a font applied to it. And based on the 'Brand > Logo' documentation, the only options are ImageObject and URL (which many very well may believe this answers the question (there's bound to be a way to do this without having to go back 4 years and use an image instead of a font)).
You could use a link element (which may be used in the body in HTML5+Microdata) to provide the URL of the logo:
<a itemprop="brand" href="" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Brand">
<span class="logo"></span>
<link itemprop="logo" href="logo.png" />
</a>
(I used span instead of i. And for the record, I don’t agree that it’s a good idea to include a site’s logo via CSS instead of HTML.)
I was wondering what is the best way to implement the title and alt on a linking image.
An img-tag can have both the title and alt attributes, an a-tag can only have the title attribute.
When linking an image what is the best way to implement the title-attribute?
Should I put it on both the img and a-tag or just one of the two?
they have a different approach. the title-attribute adds a description to the element, the alt-attribute behaves as an alternative textual presentation of a image.
<a href="..." title="Click here for more information about VanGogh">
<img src="vangogh.png" alt="Famous painting of VanGogh" />
</a>
I'm wondering how to format my code. which one is better?
<a href="http://stackoverflow.com">
<img src="http://localhost/g3.jpg" alt="" height="90" width="150">
Q&A for professional and enthusiast programmers
</a>
OR
<a href="http://stackoverflow.com">
<img src="http://localhost/g3.jpg" alt="" height="90" width="150">
</a>
Q&A for professional and enthusiast programmers
I would definitely go with the first one unless you have a specific reason for having two links. Don't think about it in terms of proper coding style, but rather what makes sense usability-wise.
Note that you also have the option to only use the text in the link, and set the image as the link's background-image property in CSS. In many cases, that's exactly what I would do unless the image itself is essential to understanding the link.
In cases like this, the best thing is to think, "Which HTML structure most accurately represents how I want a user to perceive this element?"
It all depends on what you want to get :
If you only want one link (which, I suppose, is the case, here ?), then go with the first solution
If you want two distinct links (not sure why you'd want that here, as both point to the same location), then go with the second solution.
Here, you want the <img> and the text to link to the same page -- so, I'd say it's more logical to only use one <a>
The first one makes more sense to me (since you want both image and text to be part of the link, i see no reason to make two links).
I want to know what the difference is between alt="" and name=""
Would it be better to put the filename within the alt tag, or the description of the photo?
What makes better sense, both from SEO and validation stand-point?
Using the ALT attribute is more useful in terms of search engine optimalisation. Using the NAME attribute is mainly useful for internal page anchors.
The ALT attribute is intended to provide an alternate text that describes the image for people who use screen-readers, or search engines, for example.
The name attribute is mainly used for internal anchoring, which allows you to navigate within a page using anchors.
Example usage of the name attribute:
<!-- following ancor can be referenced as http://<your_url>#post-123 -->
<a name="post-123">permanent link to some post</a>
Example usage of alt attribute:
<!-- following image shows "FooBar Company Logo" when images can't be shown -->
<img src="logo.jpg" alt="FooBar Company logo" />
For more information regarding links in general: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/links.html
For more information about how and when to use the ALT attribute, see:
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/altAttribute.
The name attribute exists only to provide a name to refer to in JavaScript.
The alt attribute provides an alternate description for search engines, blind people, when the image could not be loaded, etc.
The title attribute provides a description which will be shown when the user hovers over the image with his mouse - some (but not all) browsers will use the alt attribute for this purpose when there is no title
I'd be a little wary of putting the file name in the ALT tag, since it would be displayed if images are turned off. Typically you set the ALT tag to server as a place holder with something like "Site Logo" or something else to indicate what the image is.
The NAME tag is used for anchoring and the like. If you wanted to create a link that scrolled a long page to your image, you would reference it through this.
Yeah, definitely put a description in the alt tag. It is really important for the visually impaired as this is what the screen readers will read when they come across an image. The only potential catch with this is that the alt tag is treated as tool tip text by some browsers, however, you can override that behavior with setting title="".
The alt attribute is intendet to supply an descriptive alternative in text form for the image. So if you have an image that shows a sunflower, you could use:
<img src="sunflower.jpg" alt="image of a sunflower on a sunny day">
The name attribute in intended to name the image for scripting so you can access it using images["sunflower"]. But nowadays you should use the id attribute instead.
You definitly want to use the ALT tag - for all the reasons mentioned above, and: this tag is mandatory according to W3C so you need it if you want to create "compliant code" (see e.g. w3schools).