Is this more or less meaningful TO YOU than only an image element and req'd attributes? <figure> <img src="images/ennishouse.jpg alt="photo of Ennis House by architect Frank Lloyd Wright"> <figcaption>A photo of Ennis House by architect Frank Lloyd Wright</figcaption> </figure>
5
7
iirc alt is a mundane descriptor of the content of the image, a caption can be anything like "look a this guy right here!".
1
1
Caught the nuance there! Why might it be wise to be more descriptive in one description vs. the other?
1
Well, alt is a more mechanical replacement of the image, I can't consume the pixels, so I'm provided with an alternative, caption is a more of a side dish, an enrichment of the picture (or of its alt text). Alt and caption being identical seems improper.
1
Replying to @theMadness
I agree. Also redundant. Screen reader sez what?

Apr 27, 2021 · 2:47 AM UTC

1
Replying to @mholzschlag @theMadness
Yep, the spec says to not use alt to duplicate content, so in this markup, the image should be labeled by the figcaption. I also wouldn't put "photo" in the alt...but that's just me. I often either use content from the page to label images, or mark them decorative as equivalents.
1
1
Good. Redundant in HTML. Now, was it intentional for semantics (IMO not that meaningful) and structure (well formed block, inline elements inline but the redundancy in elements AND potential alt and figcaption text troubles me) or to meet backward compat?
1
more replies