makayla3tg1: Alt Attribute & Search engine optimization

SEO Optimization images is becoming increasingly more essential in SEO (Search Engine Optimization) for websites. The ALT attribute is a critical step that is sometimes forgotten. This is often a lost opportunity for better rankings.

In Google's webmaster guidelines, they advise the use of alternative text for the images in your web site:

Images:. Make use of the alt attribute to provide descriptive text. Additionally, we recommend using a human-readable caption and descriptive text around the image.

Why would they ask us to achieve that? The answer is easy, really; search engines have a similar problem as blind users. They can't begin to see the images.

Many webmasters and inexperienced or unethical SEOs abuse using this attribute, attempting to stuff it with keywords, looking to achieve a certain keyword density, which isn't as relevant for rankings now as it was previously.

On the other hand, high keyword density can, on some search engines like google, trigger spam filters, which may create a penalty for your site's ranking. Even without this type of penalty, your site's rankings won't benefit from this plan.
This process also puts persons who use screen readers at a greater disadvantage. Screen readers are software-based tools that actually read aloud the items in what is displayed on the screen. In browsing the net, the alt features of images are read aloud as well.

Imagine hearing a paragraph of text that is followed by repetitions of numerous keywords. The page would be not even close to accessible, and, to put it mildly, would be found quite annoying.
What is an Alt attribute?

An ALT attribute should not be used as a description or perhaps a label to have an image, though many people utilize it in that fashion. Although it may appear natural to assume that alternate text is a label or a description, it is not!

The words used within an image's alt attribute should be its text equivalent and convey the same information or serve exactly the same purpose the image would.

The thing is to provide the same functional information that the visual user would see. The alt attribute text should be the "stand in" in the event that the look itself is unavailable. Think about this question: If you were to replace the look with the text, would most users receive the same basic information, and would it generate the same response?
A few examples:

Some SEO Optimization Tips

If your search button is really a magnifier or binoculars its alt text ought to be 'search' or 'find' not 'magnifying glass' or 'binoculars'.

If the image is meant to convey the literal contents of the image, a description is appropriate.

If it is designed to convey data, then that information is what's appropriate.

If it's designed to convey using a function, then your function is what ought to be used.

Some Alt Attribute Guidelines:

Always add alt attributes to images. Alt is mandatory for accessibility as well as for valid XHTML.

For images that play only a decorative role in the page, use an empty alt (i.e. alt="") or perhaps a CSS background image to ensure that reading browsers don't bother users by uttering things like "spacer image".

Remember that it is the function from the image we are attempting to convey. For instance; any button images should not range from the word "button" within the alt text. They ought to emphasize the action performed through the button.

Alt text ought to be based on context. Exactly the same image in a different context may require drastically different alt text.

Try to flow alt text with the remainder from the text because that's how it is going to be read with adaptive technologies like screen readers. Someone hearing your page should hardly remember that a graphic image can there be.
Please remember that utilizing an alt attribute for every image is needed to meet the minimum WAI requirements, that are used as the benchmark for accessibility laws in UK and the rest of Europe. They are also required to meet "Section 508" accessibility requirements in america.

It is useful to categorize non-text content into three levels:

Eye-Candy
Mood-Setting
Content and Function

I. Eye-Candy

Eye-Candy are stuff that serve no purpose other than to make a site visually appealing/attractive and (in many cases) fulfill the marketing departments. There isn't any content value (though there may be value to a sighted user).

Never alt-ify eye-candy unless there's something there which will enhance the usability of the site for somebody using a non-visual user agent. Make use of a null alt attribute or background images in CSS for eye-candy.

II. Mood-Setting

This is the middle layer of graphics which may serve to set the mood or set happens so to speak. These graphics are not direct content and could 't be considered essential, but they are essential in that they help frame what's going on.

Attempt to alt-ify the 2nd group as makes sense and it is relevant. There might be times when doing this may be annoying or detrimental to other users. Then avoid it.

For example; Alt text that is identical to adjacent text is unnecessary, and an irritant to screen reader users. I recommend alt="" or background CSS images in such cases. But sometimes, it's important to understand this content inside for all users.

Most times it depends on context. Exactly the same image inside a different context may need drastically different alt text. Obviously, content ought to always be fully available. The way you use this case is really a judgment call.

III. Content and Function

This is where the image may be the actual content. Always alt-ify content and functional images. Title and long description attributes can also be in order.
The reason many authors can't figure out why their alt text isn't working is they don't know why the images exist. You need to determined exactly what function an image serves. Consider what it is about the image that's important to the page's intended audience.

Every graphic has a reason for being on that page: because it either improves the theme/ mood/ atmosphere or it is critical to what are the page is attempting to describe. Knowing what the look is for makes alt text simpler to write. And exercise writing them definitely helps.
A method to check the usefulness of alternative text would be to imagine reading the page on the phone to someone. What would you say when encountering a particular image to make the page understandable to the listener?

Aside from the alt attribute you have a couple more tools at your disposal for images.
First, in level of descriptiveness title is within between alt and longdesc. It adds useful information and can add flavor. The title attribute is optionally rendered through the user agent. Remember they are invisible and never shown like a "tooltip" when focus is received via the keyboard. (So much for device independence). So use the title attribute only for advisory information.
Second, the longdesc attribute points towards the URL of a complete description of an image. If the information found in an image is essential to the meaning of the page (i.e. some important content would be lost if the image was removed), a longer description than the "alt" attribute can reasonably display ought to be used. It may offer rich, expressive documentation of the visual image.

It should be used when alt and title are insufficient to embody the visual qualities of an image. As Clark [1] states, "A longdesc is a long description of the image...The goal is by using any length of description necessary to impart the facts from the graphic.

It wouldn't be remiss to hope that a long description conjures a picture - the image - in the mind's eye, an analogy that holds true even for the totally blind."

Even though alt attribute is mandatory for web accessibility as well as for valid (X)HTML, not every images need alternative text, long descriptions, or titles.

In many cases, you are best just going with your gut instinct -- if it's not essential to incorporate it, and if you don't possess a strong urge to get it done, don't include that longdesc.

However, if it's essential for the entire page to operate, then you've to include the alt text (or title or longdesc).

What's necessary and what's not depends a great deal about the function of the image and it is context about the page.

The same image may require alt text (or title or longdesc) in one spot, but not in another. If the image provides simply no content or functional information alt="" or background CSS images might be appropriate to make use of. However, if the image provides content or adds functional information an alt would be required and perhaps even a long description will be so as. Oftentimes this kind of thing is really a judgement call.