Add some HTML entities

[RS_Jelle]

Not really important, but the vB.org homepage isn't XHTML valid because a lot of missing &'s (and the missing XML namespace attribute in the html tag, like on all vBulletin pages). It could be fixed in 10 minutes, so why not?

Another small thing: the MOTM and BOTM logos are missing an alternative description. Empty alt attributes are a bit meaningless.

[high]* RS_Jelle loves W3C compliancy [/high]

[Dean C]

I agree with you Jelle. When you run sites as big as this you should do everything to make it as accessible to the large majority of users as possible. Fortunately one of the vB.org admins (Princeton) seems to be take accessibilty/usablity fairly seriously which is rather refreshing so I fully expect it to be fixed

[Paul M]

[high]* Paul M does not care much about W3C. If it works then that's good enough for me
[/high]

Still, as you say, I expect Joe may take a look at some of them.

[Dean C]

Originally Posted by Paul M

[high]* Paul M does not care much about W3C. If it works then that's good enough for me
[/high]

Still, as you say, I expect Joe may take a look at some of them.

That's a pretty narrow-minded and naive attitude to those with disabilities Paul

[Paul M]

Nice try Dean, but I'm not going to bite at such a cheap shot.

As already stated, Joe generally handles the html side of vb.org, and will no doubt take a look at the issues mentioned.

[Princeton]

updated :up:

Another small thing: the MOTM and BOTM logos are missing an alternative description. Empty alt attributes are a bit meaningless.

alternative text is not required for these images; hence, why it's a "null" value (alt="")

ALT text is primarily used whenever image is not displayed. In our case, it's not needed as the "block" is already defined. eg. BOTM Poll, MOTM Poll

ALT text is also recommend for accessibility. But many misunderstand its use and actually make things worse for the reader. In our case (the portal images), if we were to add ALT text we would actually duplicate content making it difficult for the reader to follow.

I have however - added a title="" to the image.

i second Joe !!!

actually, using the alt and title for images is only needed for identification. alt is for usability, while title is for identification... you do not need the alt when the image is just for look. if it is for navigation, like buttons and arrows, you have to identify it or it will mess the use of it.. like alt="new thread button", not alt="this button is used to post a new thread" ... and the title is an addition to the alt... so if you duplicate it, like alt="new thread button", it is breaking its usability...

[Dean C]

If it's for looks, then it shouldn't be a foreground image in the first place.

Originally Posted by Dean C

If it's for look, then it shouldn't be a foreground image in the first place.

exactly... viva CSS !!... the problem is that we know the war between tables and css, and until microsoft stop providing horrible web editors, we will continue that war.

[cheat-master30]

Don't you mean horrible type web browsers (ie, many versions of Internet Explorer) rather than web editors? Because FrontPage is officially dead now, and the replacement is supposedly better at valid HTML and CSS.