Repetition in Alt Attributes

[dmwcons]

If I use an in-line unordered list as the basis for a very simple menu, do I risk any SE duplication penalty for a construction like this:

<div id="menubar">
<ul>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Bullet" /><a href="index.htm">Home</a></li>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Bullet" /><a href="news.htm">News</a></li>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Bullet" /><a href="editorial.htm">Editorial</a></li>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Bullet" /><a href="about.htm">About</a></li>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Bullet" /><a href="contact.htm">Contact</a><img src="menu.gif" alt="Bullet" /></li>
</ul>
</div>

The menu.gif is always a very simple graphic used as a separator between items in, and as end stops to, the menu.

It is the assignment of the same ”Bullet” value to each of the alt attributes that concerns me.

[subhzash]

Those should be like this

<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Home" /><a href="index.htm" title="Home">Home</a></li>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="News" /><a href="news.htm" title="News">News</a></li>


Regards
Subhzash

[dmwcons]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Those should be like this

<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Home" /><a href="index.htm" title="Home">Home</a></li>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="News" /><a href="news.htm" title="News">News</a></li>


Regards
Subhzash

Thanks Subhzash. I absolutely agree it could be. But what I want to learn is whether people think there would be a penalty attached to the scheme I propose.

Regards, David.

[getmea]

Originally Posted by dmwcons

Thanks Subhzash. I absolutely agree it could be. But what I want to learn is whether people think there would be a penalty attached to the scheme I propose.

Regards, David.

There shouldn't be a penalty because it shouldn't be written as you suggested!

You are totally missing the point about ALT tags. You are only thinking about the indexing features for Google; it provides a valuable way for the Visually imparied to "see" your page with their software. As a person hits the Tab key, the local software reads the HTML to the user.

Let's suppose you code it your way. What the software will "tell" the visually handicapped (as he/she is tabbing around your page) is: "Bullet"..."Bullet"..."Bullet"..."Bullet" instead of "Home"..."News"..."Editorial"..."About"... So I ask you, is your website ADA compliant? I think not.

To improve on subhzash's response, I would write the alt (or better yet, the title tag for FF compatibility) tags as:

<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Home page link/button" /><a href="index.htm" title="Home">Home</a></li>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="News page link/button" /><a href="news.htm" title="News">News</a></li>

If you don't comply, you will lose a piece of the pie. You may also get sued. I am not visually impaired; but I have a friend who is. If he visits a website where it is not ADA compliant, he "X"'s out.

[dmwcons]

Originally Posted by getmea

There shouldn't be a penalty because it shouldn't be written as you suggested!

You are totally missing the point about ALT tags. You are only thinking about the indexing features for Google; it provides a valuable way for the Visually imparied to "see" your page with their software. As a person hits the Tab key, the local software reads the HTML to the user.

Let's suppose you code it your way. What the software will "tell" the visually handicapped (as he/she is tabbing around your page) is: "Bullet"..."Bullet"..."Bullet"..."Bullet" instead of "Home"..."News"..."Editorial"..."About"... So I ask you, is your website ADA compliant? I think not.

To improve on subhzash's response, I would write the alt (or better yet, the title tag for FF compatibility) tags as:

<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Home page link/button" /><a href="index.htm" title="Home">Home</a></li>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="News page link/button" /><a href="news.htm" title="News">News</a></li>

If you don't comply, you will lose a piece of the pie. You may also get sued. I am not visually impaired; but I have a friend who is. If he visits a website where it is not ADA compliant, he "X"'s out.

Thank you for your respnse.

I fully appreciate your point about compliance and suitability of real web pages for the visually impaired. My family has members who are visually impaired and I have been engaged by an organisation that does work for the visually and physically impaired.

As you see from the code, the Bullets are just that – as I put in my original post, they are simple little separators. They are not links or buttons, as you seem to be suggesting, and so it could be misleading to anyone who is tabbing to make it appear that each Bullet is anything other than just the same very simple splodge of a few pixels or is in anyway different in action or context to any other Bullet.

That said, thanks for the guidance on the penalty aspect, which is what I was seeking.

Regards, David.

[subhzash]

Originally Posted by getmea

To improve on subhzash's response, I would write the alt (or better yet, the title tag for FF compatibility) tags as:

<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="Home page link/button" /><a href="index.htm" title="Home">Home</a></li>
<li><img src="menu.gif" alt="News page link/button" /><a href="news.htm" title="News">News</a></li>

I feel title and alt should not differ in any manner. If your placing Hyperlink to any image then you should write same alt tag and title tag.


Regards
Subhash

[dmwcons]

Originally Posted by subhzash

I feel title and alt should not differ in any manner. If your placing Hyperlink to any image then you should write same alt tag and title tag.


Regards
Subhash

Please note that none of the images in my code forms part of a link.

Regards, David.

[getmea]

Originally Posted by dmwcons

Please note that none of the images in my code forms part of a link.

Regards, David.

David:

I understand what your purpose is...the image is simply there to mark separation. My guess is Google will not penalize you...as long as you don't have a ton of the same images and same alt/title tags.

If you want to make the images as part of the <li> (and make the code cleaner), why not make it part of CSS instead of adding <img> logic?

On my pages, I have the following CSS take care of replacing the standard <li> "dot" with a real image:

li {list-style-image: url('http://www.44skate.com/img/bullet.gif');}

Using the above CSS, you will now code the <li> as:

<li><a href="index.htm" alt="Home" title="Home">Home</a></li>

This way, Google will not find the execessive images in the html and not penalize you (if excessive).

regards,
Getmea

[sushil]

Thanks for this information.