change images

[windandwaves]

Hi Folk and Gurus

This may help some of you (though probably not the gurus), in changing
images:

http://www.sunnysideup.co.nz/j/imageChange/

Any feedback appreciated.

Cheers

Nicolaas

[Randy Webb]

David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 12:53 AM:

On Aug 7, 12:37 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:
[snip]

>Anyway, you still had several problems. Here is a more reliable and
unobtrusive version of the. I made a few style changes too.

One note on the revised version. Add a rule to the script-added style
block to hide the menu as well. It won't be able to do anything while
the page is loading and style is enabled.

And I just noticed that you still have alternate text for the images.
Change the alt attributes to "".

I have to ask why you think the alt attribute should be changed to ""
instead of something reasonable for the image impaired UA's? If the
caption for the image is simple duplication for the ALT attribute then
it should be put in the ALT attribute, read back out by script and
turned into a caption. If the caption isn't duplication, then the ALT
attribute should be there and be something meaningful in the event
images aren't supported, are disabled or the image can't be downloaded
(for whatever reason).

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[David Mark]

On Aug 7, 8:08 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:

David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 12:53 AM:

On Aug 7, 12:37 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:
[snip]

Anyway, you still had several problems. Here is a more reliable and
unobtrusive version of the. I made a few style changes too.

One note on the revised version. Add a rule to the script-added style
block to hide the menu as well. It won't be able to do anything while
the page is loading and style is enabled.

And I just noticed that you still have alternate text for the images.
Change the alt attributes to "".

I have to ask why you think the alt attribute should be changed to ""
instead of something reasonable for the image impaired UA's? If the

Any way you look at it, a slide show like this one isn't going to make
much sense in a text-only browser.

caption for the image is simple duplication for the ALT attribute then
it should be put in the ALT attribute, read back out by script and
turned into a caption. If the caption isn't

But then you need script to see the captions. The captions belong in
the static content and I don't see them as alternatives for the
images. If you put things like alt="A landscape with a sunset" in
image tags, then text-only browsers will display that, but it won't
make sense in a text-only context. It is easier to picture this if
you imagine an image floated next to a paragraph.

duplication, then the ALT

attribute should be there and be something meaningful in the event
images aren't supported, are disabled or the image can't be downloaded

What is meaningful in this case? The captions describe what would
have been in the empty spaces. That's another reason why captions
should be part of the static content.

I only recently saw the light on this when I started testing pages
with Lynx. It exposed some misconceptions I had about alt
attributes. They are not for describing images, but to provide
alternative content when alternate content is needed to make sense of
the page (eg diagrams, images that contain text, images that are
links, etc.)

[Randy Webb]

windandwaves said the following on 8/6/2007 9:50 PM:

On Aug 6, 8:35 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:
...

>You really shouldn't be using the display property for this (see the
other thread that Randy mentioned.)

I dont understand this - why? visibility hidden means that it reserves
space for it, meaning that it does not sit as nice. What is wrong with
display: none?

Because there are browsers (mentioned in the long thread I linked to)
that do not allow you to do some things that main stream browsers do
allow you to do.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Randy Webb]

David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 8:37 AM:

On Aug 7, 8:08 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:

>David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 12:53 AM:

>>On Aug 7, 12:37 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:
[snip]
Anyway, you still had several problems. Here is a more reliable and
unobtrusiv e version of the. I made a few style changes too.
One note on the revised version. Add a rule to the script-added style
block to hide the menu as well. It won't be able to do anything while
the page is loading and style is enabled.
And I just noticed that you still have alternate text for the images.
Change the alt attributes to "".

I have to ask why you think the alt attribute should be changed to ""
instead of something reasonable for the image impaired UA's? If the

Any way you look at it, a slide show like this one isn't going to make
much sense in a text-only browser.

It doesn't make much sense in a non-script browser either. It simply
becomes a plain image gallery. But, I agree with the concept of "this
particular page" but I was more interested in any supposition of
removing/nullifying the alt attribute.

>caption for the image is simple duplication for the ALT attribute then
it should be put in the ALT attribute, read back out by script and
turned into a caption. If the caption isn't

But then you need script to see the captions. The captions belong in
the static content and I don't see them as alternatives for the
images.

Then it should, as I wrote, be in the static page. The sentence saying
that is broken in half above/below your text. But, with a text only
browser the captions alone don't make a lot of sense either do they?

If you put things like alt="A landscape with a sunset" in
image tags, then text-only browsers will display that, but it won't
make sense in a text-only context.

The captions wouldn't make a lot of sense in a text only browser without
something to indicate what the caption is about though would they?

It is easier to picture this if
you imagine an image floated next to a paragraph.
duplication, then the ALT

>attribute should be there and be something meaningful in the event
images aren't supported, are disabled or the image can't be downloaded

What is meaningful in this case? The captions describe what would
have been in the empty spaces. That's another reason why captions
should be part of the static content.

See above though :) The captions without anything to go with them don't
make sense either.

I only recently saw the light on this when I started testing pages
with Lynx. It exposed some misconceptions I had about alt
attributes. They are not for describing images, but to provide
alternative content when alternate content is needed to make sense of
the page (eg diagrams, images that contain text, images that are
links, etc.)

Yes, but I usually test non-images in FF2.0 and Amaya because I am
spoiled by GUI's :)

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[David Mark]

On Aug 7, 11:28 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:

David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 8:37 AM:

On Aug 7, 8:08 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:

David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 12:53 AM:

>On Aug 7, 12:37 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:
[snip]
Anyway, you still had several problems. Here is a more reliable and
unobtrusive version of the. I made a few style changes too.
One note on the revised version. Add a rule to the script-added style
block to hide the menu as well. It won't be able to do anything while
the page is loading and style is enabled.
And I just noticed that you still have alternate text for the images.
Change the alt attributes to "".
I have to ask why you think the alt attribute should be changed to ""
instead of something reasonable for the image impaired UA's? If the

Any way you look at it, a slide show like this one isn't going to make
much sense in a text-only browser.

It doesn't make much sense in a non-script browser either. It simply
becomes a plain image gallery. But, I agree

It actually works pretty well if CSS is enabled due to the
overflow:auto rule on the container (and the fact that the container
is roughly the size of one image.)

with the concept of "this

particular page" but I was more interested in any supposition of
removing/nullifying the alt attribute.

You never remove it as it is required for accessibility compliance,
but often you nullify it (typically for decorative images.)

>

caption for the image is simple duplication for the ALT attribute then
it should be put in the ALT attribute, read back out by script and
turned into a caption. If the caption isn't

But then you need script to see the captions. The captions belong in
the static content and I don't see them as alternatives for the
images.

Then it should, as I wrote, be in the static page. The sentence saying
that is broken in half above/below your text. But, with a text only
browser the captions alone don't make a lot of sense either do they?

In an image gallery like this, that's all the sense you can make of it
without using longdesc attributes to provide a links to descriptions
of the images. My point is that alt should not be used for such a
description.

>

If you put things like alt="A landscape with a sunset" in
image tags, then text-only browsers will display that, but it won't
make sense in a text-only context.

The captions wouldn't make a lot of sense in a text only browser without
something to indicate what the caption is about though would they?

What makes sense of it is the context of the page. Presumably a
header above the index list would indicate that what follows is a
series of images (eg "Pictures from my summer vacation.")

>

It is easier to picture this if
you imagine an image floated next to a paragraph.
duplication, then the ALT

attribute should be there and be something meaningful in the event
images aren't supported, are disabled or the image can't be downloaded

What is meaningful in this case? The captions describe what would
have been in the empty spaces. That's another reason why captions
should be part of the static content.

See above though :) The captions without anything to go with them don't
make sense either.

In the context of this page I think they would make as much sense as
you could hope for in a text-only browser (or aural browser.)

>

I only recently saw the light on this when I started testing pages
with Lynx. It exposed some misconceptions I had about alt
attributes. They are not for describing images, but to provide
alternative content when alternate content is needed to make sense of
the page (eg diagrams, images that contain text, images that are
links, etc.)

Yes, but I usually test non-images in FF2.0 and Amaya because I am
spoiled by GUI's :)

I still don't know what more you could put in the alt attributes to
make it look right. Instead of having a single caption per image, you
would have alternating descriptions and captions. Assuming the
captions are not redundant (eg they don't indicate what the image is),
you would need use longdesc attributes to link to descriptions.

All in all, this type of presentation is an odd case. But there are
lots of instances where alt="" is the only sensible markup. It is
typically the best replacement for things like "[image]" or "[image of
my dog]", etc.