Our spec for this is http://www.hixie.ch/specs/alttext Alternative text should be prefixed by an icon. The icon should be chosen from the following list: For images that have not been downloaded, use a generic image or object icon. For images that are known to be unavailable, use the missing image or missing object icon. For images that are in a format not supported by the UA, an unknown format icon. For images that are corrupted, a broken image or broken object icon. The icons should be relatively small so as not to disrupt most text but be easily clickable, for instance 16 pixels by 16 pixels square. The images are intended to indicate to the user that they can be used to get to whatever options the UA provides for images. The icon should have the context menu that would have come up if the user clicked on the image, had it been available.
I thought that in standards more we were going to just show the alt text inline and not show a broken-image doohickey?
We want to show the alt text inline _with_ the icon doohickey. That way users know something is up.
is this a duplicate of bug 169913? (or the other way round, if you prefer)
Bonus points if themes and user stylesheets can change the size and appearance. User stylesheets should have top priority, then the current theme, and failing that a default appearance (from Classic?). Default size should be 16px square, because that's the standard small icon size on most platforms. Hardware/OS should be All/All, methinks. Not sure about severity, possibly minor. push @cc, $self;
*** Bug 218992 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I like the new behaviour of images not showing any icons. At least the change between 1.3 and 1.5. Some pages now look much better, because irrelevant images aren't taking space. But there should be an icon if the image is inside a link and has no alt text, or alt="". Otherwise, it is invisible now.
If the content shown to the user is text, why are the options for images relevant? If the options for images aren't relevant, why is an icon needed?
The options are relevant because you might want to "View Image", "Load Image", "Copy Image Location", etc.
If people decide they want to do this, this is just a matter of changing the impl of -moz-alt-content (eg allowing it in addition to other content, not just instead of other content) and then creating icons and changing html.css to point to them.
*** Bug 309554 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
how do you do editing to html.css I would like an example Thank you :D (In reply to comment #10) > If people decide they want to do this, this is just a matter of changing the > impl of -moz-alt-content (eg allowing it in addition to other content, not just > instead of other content) and then creating icons and changing html.css to point > to them.
Created attachment 443316 [details] [diff] [review] html.css modified html.css lines 427-431 to indicate an image is available but not rendered refer to: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=561314 for details and this bug for history: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180622
Comment on attachment 443316 [details] [diff] [review] html.css Thanks Steve! Can you provide a diff and repost it? By the way I wasn't sure if you meant to post this here or over on bug 561314? Regarding patch process: https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Developer_Guide/How_to_Submit_a_Patch
Oh actually yes posting here is correct (the other bug is closed) - sorry for spam.
Comment on attachment 443316 [details] [diff] [review] html.css Steve, you want to ask a particular person for review, not just set the '?' flag without a name. r- because: 1) For long alt text inline-block will do very very wrong things (esp if the image is near the end of the line). 2) There's no guarantee that the colors used will be visible on the web page; setting color without background is a general no-no.
(In reply to comment #18) > (From update of attachment 443316 [details] [diff] [review]) > Steve, you want to ask a particular person for review, not just set the '?' > flag without a name. > r- because: > 1) For long alt text inline-block will do very very wrong things (esp if the > image is near the end of the line). > 2) There's no guarantee that the colors used will be visible on the web page; > setting color without background is a general no-no. Hi boris, i didn't know who to ask, so should I modify in respect to above and resubmit asking you to review?
I can probably review the code, sure. It's not clear to me what a good solution here is UI-wise, and in particular I'm not a good reviewer for any icons you might come up with. One of the UI folks (boriss, limi, afaaborg?) would be better for that.