Image caption

laptophobo · 2010-05-12 03:19:12

So, the short answer here is that the “caption” option within Images does not work.

masa · 2010-05-12 23:25:09

Well, there never has been a caption attribute or <txp:image_caption /> tag, if that’s what you mean.

Bijay · 2010-08-16 05:49:07

hi all.. I am wondering if any body could help me to keep the caption on the image,… Those images are form the image category, and used javascript file to make them sliding.. javascript goes like this

<!— include Cycle plugin —>
<script type=“text/javascript” src=“http://cloud.github.com/downloads/malsup/cycle/jquery.cycle.all.2.74.js”></script>

<!— initialize the slideshow when the DOM is ready —>
<script type=“text/javascript”>
$(document).ready(function() { $(‘.slideshow’).cycle({ fx: ‘scrollUp’ // choose your transition type, ex: fade, scrollUp, shuffle, etc…

});
});

</script>

Caption text in the images with those text get rolls..

For ex: http://www.summit-nepal.com/

thebombsite · 2010-08-16 10:58:56

If you can use the upm_image plug-in to call the images it has an image-caption tag to call the caption from the “Images” tab. Use the main plug-in tag as a wrap-tag to create the format you need for the slider.

Last edited by thebombsite (2010-08-16 10:59:35)

Bijay · 2010-08-17 04:39:37

Does “upm_image” plugins support the image to get roll like we have some rolling option “fade”, “scrollUp”, “shuffle”?

colak · 2010-08-17 07:43:47

Bijay wrote:

Does “upm_image” plugins support the image to get roll like we have some rolling option “fade”, “scrollUp”, “shuffle”?

Hi Bijay,

It’s a question that should be asked in the plugin’s thread

—->ps. And back to the thread’s topic:) So much looking forward to HTML5

thebombsite · 2010-08-17 15:03:48

The upm_image plugin is not a gallery. It merely gives you more options to work with than the current <txp:image /> tag. If you want effects you will need to add them yourself. I have a little article that may be of interest to you.

Last edited by thebombsite (2010-08-17 15:04:49)

Destry · 2014-02-17 14:18:05

Mary wrote #170851:

FYI: caption is currently output as image title attribute, if you think it isn’t being used anywhere.

Well, I’ve just spent a fair amount of time getting to the end state of this, which is great, but realized (or rather, remembered, along with the other bad easter egg, escape="" for textile) that Txp’s image caption field is actually treated as the value for a title attribute. That’s disappointing because now the caption text is showing up twice in the UI, once from title hovers, and once for the actual figure caption used under images.

In my case, captions under images are sometimes like this for each image: Figure 1: Lorem ipsum and goes on for three long sentences to describe graph, chart, whatever. That’s not such an unusual use of real captions, I think.

So you can imagine how ugly those title popups look, and not very usable. Redundant, and no doubt annoying to people using screen readers.

I think we can all agree, at least I hope we can, that an image’s title="" attribute is not the same thing as a real piece of copy marked up as a figcaption. So I totally agree with Lee here, but two things need done, really:

The existing “Caption” field needs to be relabeled to Title attribute (<txp:image_info type="title" />), because currently it’s totally frickin’ confusing.
A new field needs created for an actual caption, and to make it explicitly clear, label the field Fig caption (<txp:image_info type="caption" />).

Then adjust this variable for figures/figcaptions so it’s actually spitting out the caption not the erroneous title attribute value.

As it is now, I don’t think it’s worth using the nice variable for figcaptions because it’s causing duplication of content (title popups being unnecessary in this case).

Bloke · 2014-02-17 16:40:00

Destry wrote #279019:

Txp’s image caption field is actually treated as the value for a title attribute.

Yes, it predates the caption / figcaption / figure concept in HTML, and is badly used in Txp.

As you suggest, this issue goes a bit deeper than just the tag itself. We need a new UI element on the Image Edit panel, and a corresponding database field to separate the title and caption, and then mirror those with the tag. In this case, I’m not sure if it’ll break backwards compatibility too much if the caption is changed to output the caption instead of the current title/caption combo.

There’s also one more spanner in the works: the planned image custom fields. At what point do the various image attributes (primarily name, title, and caption) go from being first class citizens in the database to being just attribute data? Is a caption a required field that we should always store against the image, like width and height are, or is it an optional thing that you don’t want to gum up the database on everyone’s installation? Same goes for title: it’s an optional HTML attribute after all, but moving it from being a first class attribute to a custom field would break too much unless we were very clever with the tag options to pull the right info from the custom field table for legacy installs. Quite messy, but there may be a way to do it with some lateral thinking.

Arguably a caption is required for some (most?) situations but, as you say, site images won’t need them for the same reason that the title isn’t much use for screen readers. Is this a candidate for allowing ‘site images’ to be separate from the ‘content images’ pool and they’re treated separately, or is that just too confusing?

So what’s the path forward here? I’m more than willing to take this on as an enhancement, because it’s been confusing for too long now. Just, how do we manage it so that we:

a) minimise breakage with existing image_info tag.
b) make the interface and tags consistent and usable going forward.
c) factor in potential image custom fields (providing I can manage it: major step forward this morning, btw!)

Thoughts?

philwareham · 2014-02-17 17:41:09

Captions should never be utilised for image `title` attribute, that needs to be changed in core in my opinion. In fact, the image `title` attribute is utterly redundant – it’s not used by screen readers and it has no accessibility or SEO benefits. That’s what we have the `alt` attribute for. Just get rid of it being used for `title`.

Captions are in no way required in most situations, and by implying it as ‘fig caption’ gives the impression that it’ll automatically turn your image into a figure/figcaption combination without any further input. People might want to use captions for other things. I’m happy to leave that labelling as-is. Captions should be allowed to use Textile or strip Textile though, as a setting, whichever the user wants to do.

Site (theme) images shouldn’t even be in the CMS, if you are doing that then you are doing it wrong. Only content images should be in the CMS. That would be as bad as putting CSS styling into the CMS database*.

*we need to encourage not putting CSS into the CMS database.

sacripant · 2014-02-17 18:07:35

philwareham wrote #279026:

Captions should never be utilised for image `title` attribute, that needs to be changed in core in my opinion. In fact, the image `title` attribute is utterly redundant – it’s not used by screen readers and it has no accessibility or SEO benefits. That’s what we have the `alt` attribute for. Just get rid of it being used for `title`.

+1 title attribut is unnecessary in <img />

@Destry

Actually, instead <txp:image /> tag, you may use

<img url="<txp:image_url />" alt="<txp:image_info type='alt' />" />

Last edited by sacripant (2014-02-17 18:12:11)

gaekwad · 2014-02-17 18:27:30

philwareham wrote #279026:

That would be as bad as putting CSS styling into the CMS database*.

*we need to encourage not putting CSS into the CMS database.

+1

Bloke · 2014-02-17 19:20:23

philwareham wrote #279026:

Just get rid of it being used for `title`.

Well that makes things easy. Alter the <txp:image>, <txp:article_image> and <txp:thumbnail> tags to output no title and that’s it. Then it’s entirely user-defined (via <txp:image_info />) what you use the caption for.

Any objections?

we need to encourage not putting CSS into the CMS database.

Que? Get rid of Presentation->Styles? :-s

philwareham · 2014-02-17 20:44:09

I’d be more than happy to see title gone. This article sums it up pretty well I think.

As for styles within the CMS, no we can’t get rid of it unfortunately, though it’s a relic from the past and just plain bad. Maybe an option to completely hide it like we do with comments when turned off may suffice. That and lack of flat (file based) template support are my two major pet hates about Textpattern (luckily Jukka has a plug for flat files).

Don’t get me wrong, I love Textpattern, but those were really shit design choices. As was calling template partials ‘forms’.

Bloke · 2014-02-17 21:39:48

philwareham wrote #279032:

I’d be more than happy to see title gone.

Done. A mere 6 years after the feature request was opened. That’s gotta be a record.

Note that I’ve also removed the caption from the anchor’s title attribute if you use link="1" in <txp:thumbnail />, for the same reasons as stated above. People who want a title attribute will have to roll their own anchors now. Is that a bad thing?

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#16 2010-05-12 03:19:12

Re: Image caption

#17 2010-05-12 23:25:09

Re: Image caption

#18 2010-08-16 05:49:07

Re: Image caption

#19 2010-08-16 10:58:56

Re: Image caption

#20 2010-08-17 04:39:37

Re: Image caption

#21 2010-08-17 07:43:47

Re: Image caption

#22 2010-08-17 15:03:48

Re: Image caption

#23 2014-02-17 14:18:05

Re: Image caption

Mary wrote #170851:

#24 2014-02-17 16:40:00

Re: Image caption

Destry wrote #279019:

#25 2014-02-17 17:41:09

Re: Image caption

#26 2014-02-17 18:07:35

Re: Image caption

philwareham wrote #279026:

#27 2014-02-17 18:27:30

Re: Image caption

philwareham wrote #279026:

#28 2014-02-17 19:20:23

Re: Image caption

philwareham wrote #279026:

#29 2014-02-17 20:44:09

Re: Image caption

#30 2014-02-17 21:39:48

Re: Image caption

philwareham wrote #279032:

Board footer