OK, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a thread on it (probably because of the broad terms). I know that I should be adding alt tags to images so that spiders can find the text--my question is, is it more important to do on an image that is a link than an image that is just an image? I'm assuming an image link alt tag would be paid more attention than a non-link... Thanks for any feedback. Toonces51
"non-clickable" images with alt tags aren't helpful from an S E O point of view, but can be useful for your site visitors/customers - of course. make your images "clickable" where it makes sense to do so. cheers,
It is good practice to always include alt tags with images. It also makes a lot of sense to make the alt tag on a clickable image keyword rich. T
Of course. But not strictly necessary to produce a web page. There are many WYSIWYG users who have no idea what valid HTML is. T
Thanks for the feedback. I always slap some alt tags in my images, but I'm dealing with some legacy issues with some clients, and I wanted to make sure I was explaining it correctly.
Out of curiosity, doesn't Google Images index graphics based on alt tags? If so, it would seem to me that they are of SEO value. However, there's a reason they're required to validate as X/HTML and it's also a matter of common courtesy, many people surf the web with images turned off or on non-graphical devices, so the alt tag allows your page to make more sense to them.
When you place the Alt tag on your images, you are also allowing visually impaired site visitors a way of deciphering the image with a screen reader.
I have to second that for the effort it requires, including alt tags is always a good thing to do. Take Care.