Difference between alt="" and title="" image tags, which is better?

[Clint1]

I've been wondering about this for a long time. Is there any difference between alt="image description" and title="image description" image tags, as far as any help with SERP's are concerned? FF still doesn't support the alt image tag, but it does pop-up the text when the title="" tag is used when hovering an image. So I'm wondering if the title="" can be used in lieu of the alt image tag? Do the SE's still treat a title="" tag the same as the alt tag? Or does this make absolutely no difference either way?

Thanks.

[danlefree]

Matt Cutts suggests using both - I'd be inclined to do so (though I haven't tested any configurations in which only one tag is used, I can say that I've seen good results at Google Image Search while using both a title and an attribute).

[Clint1]

Thanks Dan I'll read that. That's what I've been doing (using both) and I was wondering if that was a waste of time and space.

[wige]

The use is a matter of browser implementation. Firefox properly implements the spec (title is diplayed on mouseover, alt is displayed when the image can't be) while IE does just the opposite. I have seen a lot of references indicating that while search engines still check these tags for spammyness, using the same text in both fields is considered catering to the browsers and thus given a pass (or more accurately, an acceptable practice coded into the algorithms) although if you practice keyword stuffing that in a single attribute would be seen as spammy, you might end up with more of a penalty when you copy that text into the other attribute.

[morestar]

The use is a matter of browser implementation. Firefox properly implements the spec (title is diplayed on mouseover, alt is displayed when the image can't be) while IE does just the opposite. I have seen a lot of references indicating that while search engines still check these tags for spammyness, using the same text in both fields is considered catering to the browsers and thus given a pass (or more accurately, an acceptable practice coded into the algorithms) although if you practice keyword stuffing that in a single attribute would be seen as spammy, you might end up with more of a penalty when you copy that text into the other attribute.

ya i was inclined to adding the same text within both attributes but from what I've read around these parts and now read from you wige it's clear that I should be using those attributes for what they're meant for.

Title is the Title of the image.
Alt is Text that is display when the image doesn't load.

I'm not in the mood for being on the sidelines when it comes to spammy pammy...

[ran_dizolph]

Alt tags (as to my understanding anyways) are also used for visually impaired people using screenreaders to describe what is in the image. It'd be a good idea to use both.

[weegillis]

This question is asked often, but never seems to get a conclusive answer. After all the reading you do, your own will form, no doubt.

The HTML example in this page provides a test bed to work with:
Thread: alt and title attributes in IMG and A tags

The discussion is further linked to articles by Webnauts, and others, I believe.

By design, each attribute has a specific purpose, and if you tune your use to the design parameters, you can't go wrong. For SEO, count on the page, not the contained attributes to give you the most punch.

[Orion]

Non-conclusive answer????!!!! There is only one answer.. they are TWO totally different things!!! title and alt have NOTHING to do with each other...

title will display a tool tip and gives information about the image / link / or form field it is used to provide additional information to the site visitor eg. title="Orion's Web Logo - link to main page of the site!"

alt is the alternative to the graphic for non graphic browsers, speech browsers and those who turn off images in their browser. Alt tells the browser what the image is like alt="top right rounded corner graphic"

It blows my mind that people can confuse these.. title tags are used in anchors, input, img and more if you have an image in an anchor (linked image) the title should be on the anchor tag not both.

Web Design 101

Sorry about pulling out the soapbox.. that's a personal pet peeve of mine. =o)...

[Clint1]

The use is a matter of browser implementation. Firefox properly implements the spec (title is diplayed on mouseover, alt is displayed when the image can't be) while IE does just the opposite.

Thanks for replying. Ok, so is there text shown when no image is shown using the title tag or is that just with the alt tag? Can the title tag do what the alt tag does as far as accessibility standards are concerned? (Text only browsers/mobile browsers, screen readers, blind, etc.).

I have seen a lot of references indicating that while search engines still check these tags for spammyness, using the same text in both fields is considered catering to the browsers and thus given a pass (or more accurately, an acceptable practice coded into the algorithms) although if you practice keyword stuffing that in a single attribute would be seen as spammy, you might end up with more of a penalty when you copy that text into the other attribute.

What I've always done is just put the name & model of the product in the tags. If it's an image of some kind of a non-product, or logo, I label it as such.

[Orion]

wige, I believe you are mistaken: in IE the title attribute will overrule the alt tag for the mouse tool tip.. however IE will show the alt as a tool tip if there is no title attribute. FireFox, Opera, Safari, Chrome all work how they should.

@Clint1 alt is shown when no image NOT title, if a speech reader comes along it will read both but it's more like "this is a ALT" (filling in the words you put in the ALT "") then reads the title as if it was text in the site (additional information)..

There are speech browser emulators.. it's a real education to use them on your site.. really puts the entire 'semantic layout' into perspective and more.. Been a few years since I've used them.. I should probably check them out again..