Provide better ALT Names on images.

[MartinTruckenbrodt]

Hello,
I prefer the way similar to the existing URL BBCode.

ALT texts like dscn0936.jpg or img11145.jpg (examples for digi cam pictures) which would been used automatically don't make sense.

If no extra text is given then the language variable should been used like it is done at the moment.

Bye Martin

[Dragosvr92]

@ecwpa, Thank you.
@DavidIQ, Why? The idea stands in this topic. I dont even know what RFC stands for, and i dont have, or can write the script. Even if i could, i'd probably make it the wrong way and phpbb will say its bugy, so the Dev should make it.

@/a3, it may not make a big difference, but its better than what we currently have.
I think You are right and Google does read the filename too.

If you werent aware, all the current images inside the [img] tag (besides the smilies which dont have any alt set) are using "Image" as an alt text. I wasnt suggesting to use it, we already do.

[DavidIQ]

@DavidIQ, Why? The idea stands in this topic. I dont even know what RFC stands for, and i dont have, or can write the script. Even if i could, i'd probably make it the wrong way and phpbb will say its bugy, so the Dev should make it.

So you bother writing a post about it but don't even bother looking into what the proper procedure is for requesting a change? Writing an RFC does not mean you have to code it. Please read more about it in the getting involved page and pretty much any of the RFC forums. You've replied to some of them so I'm sure you've noticed there is a procedure for these things.

@/a3, it may not make a big difference, but its better than what we currently have.
I think You are right and Google does read the filename too.

If it makes little to no difference then why should anyone spend time doing the work if nobody is going to see the benefits of it? IMO if that is the case then I don't see the need to change what is already being done. However if YOU are going to write the patch for it and also write the RFC and associated tracker ticket for it then I'm sure the Dev team would at least look at your patch.

[ecwpa]

@ecwpa, Thank you.
@DavidIQ, Why? The idea stands in this topic. I dont even know what RFC stands for, and i dont have, or can write the script. Even if i could, i'd probably make it the wrong way and phpbb will say its bugy, so the Dev should make it.

RFC = Request for consideration.

In short its the formal way to request a feature, fix, etc. All you need to do is create a topic within [3.2/Arsia] RFCs & Patches which must include an introduction to the issue, your proposal and also pros and cons if you can. More info here.

@/a3, it may not make a big difference, but its better than what we currently have.
I think You are right and Google does read the filename too.

Yes it does. I did an ego image search recently and found that a lot of images weren't actually related to a post by me on a forum but other forums in where people were using images hosted on my Photobucket account, all Photobucket images include their uploader's name within the URL.

I still think this is a good patch to do. If you do a Google image search for "phpBB logo" the very first image contain "phpbb logo" as a filename and as alt text so it ranked better than others that didn't. There are other factors but I think Google consider alt text very important for image search at least.

[brunoais]

^ just for the record: Actually it's Request For Comments. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments

[/a3]

@/a3, it may not make a big difference, but its better than what we currently have.
I think You are right and Google does read the filename too.

If you werent aware, all the current images inside the [img] tag (besides the smilies which dont have any alt set) are using "Image" as an alt text. I wasnt suggesting to use it, we already do.

I sort of understand what your point is, but the point I'm trying to make is that we can already do better than this; by using the same syntax as the [url] BBCode, as originally suggested by sooskriszta. It will be compatible with what we already have, in terms of the BBCode, and it will keep SEO people happy.

I guess perhaps the question now is what we will be doing with images that don't have alternative text. My answer to that would be have no alt whatsoever, or do what we are currently doing. The filename, IMO, is already repeated in the src="" part of the tag so not really necessary.

Just my opinion.

[Oleg]

alt is a required attribute but frequently there is no meaningful data to put into it, as a result half of the time it's something useless like the name of the file.

I agree that meaningful alt text is good, but changing from a generic placeholder to a less generic placeholder seems rather pointless. We should ideally have meaningful alt text on image buttons that don't have text in markup otherwise. For something like the faq icon before the faq link, does it really matter if the alt text for it reads "image" or "faq.png"? The link immediately following is "faq" regardless.

[brunoais]

^ Use the empty @alt. That has a special meaning for the 3 readers I checked even though I don't remember correctly if it has a special meaning in the spec.

[ecwpa]

alt is a required attribute but frequently there is no meaningful data to put into it, as a result half of the time it's something useless like the name of the file.

I agree that meaningful alt text is good, but changing from a generic placeholder to a less generic placeholder seems rather pointless. We should ideally have meaningful alt text on image buttons that don't have text in markup otherwise. For something like the faq icon before the faq link, does it really matter if the alt text for it reads "image" or "faq.png"? The link immediately following is "faq" regardless.

As I said, I don't think the file name is useless. The faq example you mention, make me think you're thinking about regular search, not image search. For image search, it does matter a lot.

And now that I think about it, even if the filename is an alphanumeric string it's actually still relevant to search engines for finding similar images.

[Oleg]

I checked the faq image just now and it is defined in css apparently, therefore it has no alt text at all.

Please summarize the last 4 pages of this topic - what exactly is the proposal?