On test.wikipedia.org, I added my proposed"alt" attribute for images if no explicit description is given in the link.
[[image:foobar.jpg]] will have the description of [[image:foobar.jpg]] as alt attribute, while
[[image:foobar.jpg|Testing]] will have "Testing" as alt attribute.
Magnus
On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-02 at 08:25, Magnus Manske wrote:
On test.wikipedia.org, I added my proposed"alt" attribute for images if no explicit description is given in the link.
[[image:foobar.jpg]] will have the description of [[image:foobar.jpg]] as alt attribute, while
I don't think that's a good idea. The description page often enough contains the site of origin, contributor, copyright information, sometimes the f-stop and date of photography, links to related images (as in a sequence), notes on usage...
[[image:foobar.jpg|Testing]] will have "Testing" as alt attribute.
(as present)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-02 at 08:25, Magnus Manske wrote:
On test.wikipedia.org, I added my proposed"alt" attribute for images if no explicit description is given in the link.
[[image:foobar.jpg]] will have the description of [[image:foobar.jpg]] as alt attribute, while
I don't think that's a good idea. The description page often enough contains the site of origin, contributor, copyright information, sometimes the f-stop and date of photography, links to related images (as in a sequence), notes on usage...
Yes, it might contain all that. OTOH, I remember writing some image descriptions for the "visually impaired" (is that the correct political expression at the moment?) at back Nupedia (actually, Ruth Ifcher wrote most of them;-), and there's no way a text like that could fit into [[image:foobar.jpg|Description]]. AFAIK, the description *should* go into the [[image:foobar.jpg]] article, not into the articles that use the image.
I say better give more information than needed than none at all.Of course, I'm open for better ideas...
Magnus
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org