How do I put text tags on images?

[#1]

How do I put a text tag on my own Smilie image?
I know how to do it in HTML for a web site, but I don't no how to do it on a forum!   
I have been looking for some time how to do it!   
Can anyone help?   
[Edit]
How to put a text tag on image on a web site.
A example is:
<img src='http://www.Your_Domain_Name.com/smile.gif' alt='Smile' border='0' height=15 width=15>

[#2]

You can't provide alternative text for forum emoticons, as the alternative text for these are defined by the package server-side.
What's wrong with the existing alternative text, if you don't mind me asking?

[#3]

As I said how do I put a text tag on my own Smilie image?
Not on the Smilies from the forum on my Smilie image or on my picture. 

[#4]

Sorry, I misread your question.
I don't believe it is possible to allow for alternative text on a user-defined image, as this functionality isn't implemented in the forum software.

[#5]

Quote from: MikeWhitehead

I don't believe it is possible to allow for alternative text on a user-defined image, as this functionality isn't implemented in the forum software.

Well it needs to be to comply with The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 all web sites must comply with the Act, and see as well Web Access Centre at The Royal National Institute of Blind People. 

[#6]

Quote from: tdadyslexia

Well it needs to be to comply with The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 all web sites must comply with the Act, and see as well Web Access Centre at The Royal National Institute of Blind People.

If you feel this is a major problem with the forum software, I suggest you contact Simple Machines at info [at] simplemachines [dot] org. PlusNet were not responsible for the creation of the forum software, and alteration to add this feature would involve losing any support from the software creators, and could introduce huge security risks.

[#7]

Quote from: James_H

If there was an option to include an alt text for an image, it would still require the user to input the text in order for it to work sensibly.

Hi James the point is that the option needs to be there for the user.  If the user did not input the text a default text would be inputed, Saying a members image or just image. 

Quote

If there was an option, do you see it as being widely used in general terms?

As said if the user did not input the text a default text would be inputed, Saying a members image or just image.  So it wood not matter if the user did not input the text. 

Quote from: MikeWhitehead

If you feel this is a major problem with the forum software, I suggest you contact Simple Machines at info [at] simplemachines [dot] org.

See the Simple Machines LLC Answer.
From Simple Machines LLC

Quote

If you have an issue with a forum which is not located on the simplemachines.org domain, you will have to contact the forum's owner.

So you ar wrong!  Simple Machines LLC has nothing to do with the PlusNet forum. 

[#8]

What you have quoted is "if you have a problem with a forum", not if you have a problem with the forum software. Simple Machines LLC are responsible for the improvement and development of their software.
I will reiterate my previous comment: PlusNet did not create the forum, therefore would receive no support for either the alteration of the BBC system, or the resulting forum thereafter.
It's not a simple "instead of it saying img, say img alt=suchnsuch", because a whole load of problems can be brought into it (injection of unsanitised code, malicious usage of the img tags, etc).
So if you have a problem with the software, you contact the creators of said software to inform them of a possible alteration of a current feature.

[#9]

First I am not an expert so I may be totally wrong but I think all this discussion in relation to the Disability Protection Act is going way over the top.
The underlying purpose of the act is to allow disabled people to access goods and services but extending this to user input such as images/avatars/smilies is taking a large step too far.
I quote from the RNIB web guidance

Quote

How does it apply to websites? Websites may be covered under the employment provisions, as they may be a means of advertising jobs; or there may be an intranet which staff need to use. Websites will most commonly be covered when they constitute the provision of a service, or they are related to education. The Code of Practice cites an airline website as an example to define a service online. Taken from the Code of Practice 2.13 - 2.17 (p11-13): “What services are affected by the Act? An airline company provides a flight reservation and booking service to the public on its website. This is a provision of a service and is subject to the act.” What is meant by “reasonable adjustments”? Steps that should be taken to make reasonable adjustments include changing:     * a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service;     * any physical features which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service. Reasonable steps must also be taken to provide:     * “auxiliary aids and services " (an example of which would be an accessible website) where these would enable or facilitate the use of a service. These changes have been required since October 1999. Note that "reasonable" is not defined in the Act, but the Code of Practice does give some guidance on this, and indicates that it will depend upon:     * the type of service provided     * the type of organisation you are and resources available     * the impact on the disabled person

Extracting the relevant bit

Quote

Steps that should be taken to make reasonable adjustments include changing:     * a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service;     * any physical features which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service.

Note the parts in bold

[#10]

I agree with you entirely Jim. It seems that a few people feel the need to nit-pick in a lot of PlusNets services, and their forum (which, after all, does not relate to the paid services they provide).

[#11]

Quote from: tdadyslexia

Well it needs to be to comply with The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 all web sites must comply with the Act

And how long has it taken you to find something (anything) that you can gripe about after the DDA was mentioned in a previous post
Is it really necessary to nit pick about something which has no real bearing on the ability of the disabled to view or participate in this site

Bill.

[#12]

Hi all
For:
1) I am Dyslexic.
2) I run a web site on Dyslexia, plus a number of other sites as well, and all of them comply with The Disability Discrimination Act 1995,  My point is if I can do it why is it so hard for other people to do it?   
3) I am sick and tired of having to defend my self, to people who have been noted as people who help.   
4) I am not and I repeat I am not nit picking. 
5) If you can not help ar won't help pleas stop having a go at me! 
6) If you have a solution to the problem how to put a text tag on a image, I wood be pleased to here it. 
7) In other words if you don't have a solution pleas just bight your tongue. 

[#13]

Whst we are saying Gary is that there ISN'T a solution. Any alteration would need to come from the forum developers. Would you prefer PlusNet to make an implementation of alt text, have it turn out to contain a security flaw, and everyones details are discovered by someone who knows how to?
The Disability Discrimination Act does not say that EVERYTHING has to comply, it states that it should comply as best as possible. It is outwith PlusNets control to place alt tags on smilies, therefore it is complying as best as possible.
Again I urge you, if you have a problem with this, contact Simple Machines and ask them if they will alter their forum software to accomodate this.

[#14]

Gary,
I appreciate what you are saying but you keep referring to the Disability Protection Act and the RNIB site when they do not support what you want.
I wouldn't even respond if you just asked for something to be included but stating that it is legally required when it isn't is not the way to do it.
I would even refer you back to one of your earlier posts

Quote from: tdadyslexia

Quote from: Oldjim simple but clear and easy to read Oldjim sorry but you ar 100% wrong, the text is no good for a lot of people, the text colour needs to be in black.

followed by

Quote

I am not sure I understand this as by that token a lot of the text on the present forum is not acceptable. I would have thought that as long as there was a reasonable contrast between the text and the background there would be no significant problem.

to which you replied

Quote

Sorry Oldjim you ar wrong.  See Spider's quote why.

which is quite surprising as this picture comes directly from the RNIB site and clearly uses coloured text on a contrasting coloured background. Are you really saying that the RNIB don't follow the requirements.

[#15]

Putting in a facility for people to enter the alternate text would be an utter waste of effort. You look at the number of people who post URLs without going to the bother of making them appear as a friendly link. I'm sure far fewer people would use the alternate link facility - I for one wouldn't if I had described what the image was about in the text of the post.
The only thing I can believe PN might possibly consider would be hard coding alternate text of "A user image" or similar without any option for the poster to put in anything different - this would minimise if not remove the security concerns.
Of far more use would be for the clarity of the text to be improved and for there to be a theme with larger text - I hate having to fddle the browser text size when I go from site to site and bumping the text size doesn't improve the layout!