21 replies to this topic

[ranch]

Assuming two Pages P1 and P2, each optimized for two KeyWord phrases KW1 and KW2. Assume also that P1 links to P2. When using images and links I'm confused which page should benefit from the KWs.

The code in the examples is always on P1.

Example 1:

<IMG SRC="dog.jpg" ALT="IMG-KW">

Regular image (no link). No problems with that one I guess: IMG-KW should be any of the P1 KWs.

Example 2:

<A HREF="P2.htm" TITLE="TITLE-KW">LINK-KW</A>

Regular text-link. Obviously LINK-KW should be any of the P2 KWs. But what about the TITLE-KW? Should that be a P1 or a P2 KW? If a P2 KW, should I prefer the same KW as the LINK-KW (e.g. KW1) or the other KW (e.g. KW2).

An "expert" told me to use a P1 KW, but that doesn't sound logical to me as the title-tag is informing the user about the linked-to page.

Example 3:

<A HREF="P2.htm" TITLE="TITLE-KW"><IMG SRC="cat.jpg" ALT="IMG-KW"></A>

An image-link (no text). The TITLE-KW is not visible to anyone. Would that mean you should skip it? If not should I use a P1 or a P2 KW? For the IMG-KW intuitively I would use a P2 KW as the image-link informs about another page. Is that the right thing to do?

One might argue that I should use the KWs most relevant to the user, so lets assume all KWs have equal relevance.

I am about to start optimizing alt and title-tags on my site. Your help is therefore much appreciated.

[Jill]

Here's my opinion...

For non-clickable images, don't worry about keywords in alt tags. Do what makes most sense for the image at hand, or have no alt tag at all.

For clickable images, if it makes sense to describe the image this way, have the alt attribute tag use the keyword for the page you're pointing to. But the Title tag should (as you already said) be focused on the keywords for the page that it's on.

Hope this helps!

Jill

[compar]

Here's my opinion...

For non-clickable images, don't worry about keywords in alt tags.  Do what makes most sense for the image at hand, or have no alt tag at all.

I thought that it was always advisable to have an alt tag on every image. I believe that some html validators will actually show an error if you don't have a alt tag on every image.

And I would argue that if the images is relevant to the page then you probably can use a keyword or keyword phrase in the alt tag.

[qwerty]

I thought that it was always advisable to have an alt tag on every image. I believe that some html validators will actually show an error if you don't have a alt tag on every image.

That's true -- every image should have an alt attribute. However, it is intended that the alt attribute briefly describe the image. If you can get your keywords in that description, that's fine.

But if there's no benefit to users (who have images turned off) to have an alt attribute for the image, you should put in a blank one: alt=""

And I agree with Jill that having keywords in the alt attribute is pretty much meaningless for images which are not anchors for links. Those appear to get ignored anyway.

[Scottie]

Do not forget the people who browse with images turned off or text-to-speech readers... alt attributes were indended to describe the image that cannot be seen for whatever reason.

[ranch]

Thank you, all of you!

Two questions remains - or I didn't interpret the answers correctly:

But the Title tag should (as you already said) be focused on the keywords for the page that it's on.

Did I say that?

I'll take your word for it, but I don't see the logic. When linking to another page the title-tag should tell the user what to expect if he clicks on that link. Why would you use KWs from the page you're on rather than from the page you're linking to?

Is the title-tag relevant at all on clickable images?

[Jill]

I think you're misunderstanding, Ranch. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding!

The Title tag for ANY page should reflect the content of the page it's on.

Or are you talking about image title attributes, or link title attributes?

You don't link to pages from the Title tag, so this is why I'm not understanding your question.

Jill

[Scottie]

The Title attribute is meant to give more info on the page the link points to- that is how it should be used.

Navigation links tend to be short by design- a title attribute is a great usability tip to let the user know what to expect before clicking the link, especially on sites that have a deep linking structure.

[qwerty]

Ah, we're seeing a communication breakdown. If I might help....

The title tag is the tag that goes in the head of your document and displays in the title bar of your browser window. It should contain the keywords for the page it's on.

The title attribute is something that is added to a number of HTML elements (I usually use them for links) that is used to describe that item. In the case of links, it should describe the page the link will take the user to.

This is the reason I've been careful lately not to use the term "alt tag". I find it tends to confuse people, since there really is no such tag. It, like the title, is an attribute of a tag.

[compar]

The Title attribute is meant to give more info on the page the link points to- that is how it should be used.

Scottie,

I'm not being picky but we already have a misunderstand between title tags and tile attributes, so I think your explanation would be clearer if you said; "The Title attribute is meant to give more info about the page the link points to"..

[ranch]

Qwerty - you might, and thank you. Sorry for the confusion. I will try to remember calling tags attributes whenever I should.

To sum up (so I'll understand):
Text-links: Use the title-attribute of the A-tag to describe to the user the page you are linking to. The link-text itself would probably be a few words only, whereas the title-attribute should be a keywordrich, short sentence. All depending on the actual context, of course.
Image-links: Use the alt-attribute of the IMG-tag to describe to the user the page you are linking to. As the alt-attribute superseeds the title-attribute the latter should not be used for image-links.

End of story, I hope?

[qwerty]

I think we're part-way there

I agree with what you wrote about the title attribute, but in the case of alt text for image links, I'd say that it should still (technically) be used to describe the image -- they can include the keyword if it's relevant to the image, though. Keep in mind that image links can have both alt and title attributes, and it's only in non-compliant browsers like IE that the alt will show up in a tooltip. The alt is really supposed to just be for users who don't see the image.

That being said, the SEO perspective is slightly different. The alt attribute of an img link will be indexed, so it matters. As far as I know, the title attribute is ignored by the spiders, so it's there for users only. I'm hoping that changes at some point, and I'd love it if someone could show me that it has, however.

[amabaie]

Here goes my first post to these forums.

I find this discussion very interesting. I have used the "title" attribute only in the "table" tag, as a description of the page or the portion of the page.

I now have two questions:

1. Where else can one use the "title" attribute?

2. I have been assuming that the "title" attribute in the "table" tag is read by the search engines, and so I have been diligent in using it on most "table" tags. Is this not the case?

Thanks.

[Jill]

Welcome, amabaie!

I don't think anyone's ever come up with any proof that the Title attribute of any tag actually gets indexed or is given any weight with any search engines. It's more of a usability thing.

That said, it may be given weight with the engines, and it certainly doesn't hurt to use it, if you're using it correctly.

Jill

[qwerty]

Where else can one use the "title" attribute?

I wasn't able to find a complete list at the W3C, but at least according to Microsoft, the title attribute can be applied to the following HTML elements:
A, ACRONYM, ADDRESS, APPLET, AREA, B, BDO, BIG, BLOCKQUOTE, BODY, BUTTON, CAPTION, CITE, CODE, CUSTOM, DD, DEL, DFN, DIR, DIV, DL, DT, EM, EMBED, FIELDSET, FORM, FRAME, FRAMESET, hn, HR, I, IFRAME, IMG, INPUT type=button, INPUT type=checkbox, INPUT type=file, INPUT type=image, INPUT type=password, INPUT type=radio, INPUT type=reset, INPUT type=submit, INPUT type=text, INS, KBD, LABEL, LEGEND, LI, LISTING, MAP, MARQUEE, MENU, OBJECT, OL, P, PLAINTEXT, PRE, Q, RT, RUBY, S, SAMP, SMALL, SPAN, STRIKE, STRONG, SUB, SUP, TABLE, TBODY, TD, TEXTAREA, TFOOT, TH, THEAD, TR, TT, U, UL, VAR, XMP

In case you want to check, my source is http://msdn.microsof...ies/title_1.asp

(There are a few in there I don't even recognize)

[added] I've just stuck a title attribute onto a form textbox in the hope that people will now fill the thing in correctly. I had no idea until now that that was possible.

Edited by qwerty, 02 September 2003 - 10:07 PM.