If you think a bug might affect users in the 57 release, please set the correct tracking and status flags for Release Management.

Alt text should be prefixed by an icon

NEW
Unassigned

Status

()

Core
Layout: Images
P3
normal
15 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: Hixie (not reading bugmail), Unassigned)

Tracking

(Blocks: 1 bug)

Trunk
Future
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

15 years ago
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?
(Reporter)

Comment 2

15 years ago
We want to show the alt text inline _with_ the icon doohickey. That way users
know something is up.

Updated

15 years ago
Priority: -- → P3
Target Milestone: --- → Future
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;
Depends on: 11011

Updated

14 years ago
OS: Windows 2000 → All
Hardware: PC → All
->Image: Layout
Assignee: other → jdunn
Component: Layout → Image: Layout
QA Contact: ian → tpreston
*** Bug 218992 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7

14 years ago
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?
(Reporter)

Comment 9

13 years ago
The options are relevant because you might want to "View Image", "Load Image",
"Copy Image Location", etc.
QA Contact: tpreston → layout.images
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. ***

Comment 12

12 years ago
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.
Assignee: jdunn → nobody

Updated

9 years ago
Duplicate of this bug: 484029
Duplicate of this bug: 561314

Comment 15

8 years ago
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
Attachment #443316 - Flags: review?
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.
Attachment #443316 - Flags: review? → review-

Comment 19

8 years ago
(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.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.