Comments on: Quiz 1.1.3: Adjacent duplicate links

By: Jeroen Mulder

Jeroen Mulder — Sun, 01 May 2005 11:27:28 +0000

I tend to lean towards C for things like this. The image is purely presentational and doesn’t need to communicate a message at all, because of the existing text link. This way you are preventing redundant information while keeping the message short and clear.

I am still not 100% sure about this though, but right now that’s where I am standing.

By: Mike Cherim

Mike Cherim — Sun, 01 May 2005 13:30:59 +0000

For me this really depends on the exact situation. I have one recent example where I had a linked image with text. I made the alt text read exactly the same as the image text and incorporated everything together. I tested it and was delighted with the results, sighted or not, it read exactly the same way. Otherwise I tend to mirror in text the link before or after the image, but I try to do so in a natural way. Example: Browsing slow & unsafe? Try Firefox and rediscover the web. My fear is that things can get redundant fast. The example above is pushing it due to the tool tip in the first link and the alt text in the second link. Perhaps since it's mirrored the best thing to do would be to nullify both. Like so. Browsing slow & unsafe? Get Firefox and rediscover the web.

By: Mike Cherim

Mike Cherim — Sun, 01 May 2005 13:34:26 +0000

Hmm. Sorry. My reply above would make more sense if the Firefox icon images were posted but they didn’t show up.

Answer D, anyway.

By: patrick h. lauke

patrick h. lauke — Sun, 01 May 2005 15:50:06 +0000

C, as the image is pure visual fluff. if for whatever reason it wasn’t possible to use CSS, B.

By: Roger Johansson

Roger Johansson — Sun, 01 May 2005 17:22:15 +0000

No doubt it should be C.

By: Anne

Anne — Sun, 01 May 2005 17:45:43 +0000

B and C are equally accessible. B is a little easier to create I guess, but C is better from a markup point of view and probably from all other points of view too.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Sun, 01 May 2005 18:38:58 +0000

Definitely C.

It makes for easier management down the road and also allows you more flexibility with smaller style rules and markup when using :hover, :visited, etc.

By: Philippe

Philippe — Mon, 02 May 2005 07:47:39 +0000

C in case the image is purely ornamental (like icons). B if the image is part of the content (product-image + product-name link to product specific page).

By: Jérôme Coupé

Jérôme Coupé — Mon, 02 May 2005 08:16:09 +0000

C would be my answer in this case (image is purely visual in this case). If the image conveys info, then method B is the one I would use).

By: Jordan Moore

Jordan Moore — Mon, 02 May 2005 21:42:36 +0000

If the image is purely presentational (conveys no additional information), method C should be used; however, in the case that the image conveys additional information, I’d have to go with method B.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 03 May 2005 02:28:54 +0000

C, personally; B if printing that icon were important.

By: Bob Easton

Bob Easton — Sat, 07 May 2005 22:08:21 +0000

Dimitri Glazkov writes in “Graphics and Structural Markup: Keeping ‘pretties’ out of content” good Rules of Thumb for determining whether an image is content or presentational. The image in this example is purely presentational and not crucial to the content. It’s not even important to print. Therefore, I’m voting C.

By: Bob Easton

Bob Easton — Mon, 09 May 2005 09:26:09 +0000

IBM Home Page reader 3.04, in item reading mode, speaks all three examples exactly the same way, as a simple link “slide show.”

By: Bob Easton

Bob Easton — Mon, 09 May 2005 10:38:39 +0000

Jaws 6.01 with IE 6
For example A says “link graphic link slide show”
For examples B and C says “link slide show”