We currently make users type in alternate text when inserting an image into msg compose, or choose "Don't enter alternate text". Nobody knows what alternate text is, and nobody cares! It's absurd enough that editor does this, but msg compose shouldn't.
Or it should at least remember your radiobutton selection.
I disagree that nobody knows what "alternative text" is. Some of those with really slow connections, and some of those covered by the "Americans With Disabilities Act" know all about alt text. Oh, and those who work on Federal and State web pages know all about it due to a Federal mandate. (Section 508 or something). However, maybe this function should be in prefs somewhere rather than a radio button on a pop-up box.
w3 cares, and the usg cares. i seem to recall a lawsuit against AOL wrt accessibility, are you sureyou want to encourage it?
This should be a WONTFIX. ALT text is necessary for accessibility.
I will disagree with "WONTFIX". Section 508 only applies to the USA, and has no meaning or jurisdiction in other countries of the world. That is why I suggested the pref option, as that way web authors in other countries can easily avoid US regulations.
sure sec508 is a US statute, but there are *two* groups who wrote opinions saying that alt should be mandatory. That second group, w3, is not a US bound body. If you're generating HTML, you're supposed to generate correct HTML, and correct HTML (according to the w3) has alt tags for ALL images.
Hmmm, I see where you are heading (I hope). As mozilla insists of valid HTML to render a page, then Composer should insist on creating valid HTML. And, from looking at the HTML 4.01 spec, ALT is required. As I tend to agree with mozilla insisting on valid HTML, then I'm just going to have to accept that Composer must create valid HTML. In that case, the option to not have ALT text should be removed.
Mail gets this from Editor. Adding Charlie.
Maybe the default could be to require Alt text, but as blake suggested, to remember if the user changes the radio button?
Why don't you just get rid of the radio button? When someone doesn't want alt text, they can just leave the field blank. > In that case, the option to not have ALT text should be removed. The option to not have alt text sets the alt text to the empty string: alt="".
The suggestion in comment 11 sounds great to me.
Hmmmm, alt="" meets the W3C spec AFAIK, but I get the feeling that it doesn't meet the spirit of the rule.
> Hmmmm, alt="" meets the W3C spec AFAIK, but I get the feeling that it doesn't > meet the spirit of the rule. It really depends on the image. Sometimes the empty string is the most appropriate alternative to an image: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.8 That being said, there should be a short explanation added if the alert box is taken out. Something like "Alternate text is displayed when the browser cannot display the image." CCing Hixie, since he knows more about this than I do.
Well, I'd have thought a semi-reasonable UI would be something along the lines of the more educational: [[ FILE PICKER HERE ]] ( ) Use alternate text that conveys the same meaning as the image, for users who have disabled images: [__________________________________________|V] (o) Image is purely decorative (( Insert )) ( Cancel ) However, I don't really see why we would bother with even suggesting it if you are writing HTML e-mail. People who are writing e-mails are _not_ likely to be very receptive to learning about accessibility issues. They know who the recipient is, and can thus act accordingly (they wouldn't send an image to someone who can't view them). If they don't know who the recipient is, e.g. on a mailing list, they shouldn't be sending the message in HTML format anyway.
> They know who the recipient is This is so false.... We use internally at Netscape almost only HTML email, as almost all the companies around the world do. We send mail to mailing-lists and we don't know all recipients. Some recipients could be blind, and I'll never know.
Adding "access" keyword as this bug is about NOT "making Mozilla accessible to users with disabilities and special needs".
The most we would probably consider is to have a pref so that the default state is "Don't use alternate text".
> The most we would probably consider is to have a pref That's absurd. Who would look for a pref for the default radio selection on a minor dialog? Just remember the last selection, as Blake suggested. I also suggest that one adopts something like Hixie's wording. Maybe () Use alternate text to to replace image when it cannot be displayed: [_____________________________________________________] () Alternate text is inappropriate because image is purely decorative.
FWIW, I think we should keep the form as-is, but change the alert. If 'alternate text' is selected but empty - rather than the current alert (hit 'ok' and return to dialogue), have a choice between 'Leave empty' or 'Add alternate text' (which goes back to the dialogue). There could be a 'don't show this dialogue again' checkbox as well. re comment 5: There is an approximate UK equivalent to Section 508 - the Disability Discrimination Act http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/1995050.htm
This is a very annoying feature of the user interface. I added a vote...
PLEASE PLEASE make alternate text visible as bubble help when moving mouse over image. Lots of pages seems to use menu images which doesn't really tell what's behind them but they have alternate text...
Robert: Alt text is supposed to replace the image as inline text. See (but please don't respond to) the discussion on bug 25537 I opened a bug about accessibility and a middle ground. Bug 230064 - ALT text should be displayed as tooltip when TITLE is not available >Why don't you just get rid of the radio button? When someone doesn't want alt >text, they can just leave the field blank. I agree we just accept an empty string as ALT text and always insert it, removing the radio button. The message that pops up can have a checkbox to not see it again. Another possibility is we could insert the name of the image (minus the extension) in the ALT field. This would be great for browsers like Lynx.
> Another possibility is we could insert the name of the image (minus the > extension) in the ALT field. This would be great for browsers like Lynx. Actually it would be horrible for browsers like Lynx. Why would a browser like lynx_icon Lynx want to have the extensions of the images sprinkled throughout the text? demo_scrnsht027
Some of you guys sound just the Government! "We know what is best for you and we are going to MAKE YOU DO IT even if you hate it!" Alternate text option is a nice idea. But when I make webpages, the pictures are essential and without them you may as well forget the whole page. It makes sense to me to HAVE alternate text for those who need it but for God's Sake, please let the alternate text YES/NO <REMEMBER> the user's last input and make that the default for the next image input selection! Purists of all stripes get in the way of real progress!
This bug should be fixed!! The clunky user interfaces adds additional confusing steps to what should be a simple process of inserting images into e-mails. The bottom line for me is that I send images of things to my family in e-mail and I am never going to bother with setting alternate text so please save me time and find a way to never have to bother with that junk again. I cannot imagine how this basic bug hasn't been fixed in 3.5 years--it must be that the developers don't use the insert image feature.
Please allow users to opt-out of the warning message. I used Composer with a AutoScriptWriter script to add and resize images to html files to be distributed via cd to people that went on the same tour of italy that my wife and I went on. It worked fine with seamonkey 1 but seamonkey 2 has broken it and I can not find a way to script around the stupid warning message that I do not need for my application. Also, please provide a way to launch composer without launching seamonkey.