About strange alt text that is for Validation. I will try to update them.
The only thing the validator knows is if you included the attribute. So, always have the attribute.
However the reason for using the alt attribute is for those who can't see images who may be giving information. Some images don't, or are difficult to turn into text. Those would be either alt="" (which is perfectly valid, esp for images that should be CSS backgrounds but for some reason are in the HTML) or for things like graphs, if they are showing something important, maybe would be better linked to a table that shows the same thing (or, there's also a few ways using either CSS or JS to style an HTML table into a graph... but let's not add more work at this point!).
You've got this:
(header)Smith Home Photos
smith first smith huse smith house second
home third smith second carol smith
(header)Rick E. - Home
That's going to confuse anyone who can't see anything... I only saw it by turning CSS and images off which is something I often do when dealing with pages where I can't get to the content because I don't have JS on. So if you have an image and it's decoration, you'll do humans a favour with alt="" and satisfy the validator. For things that are content, a better description and/or some link to something that makes more sense (since alt is intended to be rather short and the whole longdesc/D-links things didn't seem to pan out cross browser) would do it.
So like, for the images with text ("sunlight goes in, energy comes out") that's your alt text.
For the images above each item (panel, inverter, meter) those are decorational and should be alt=""
Not sure about teh graphic showing the parts as they relate to the house...
for the photos of the house, you can decide... I would not describe what the photos are showing (panels on the roof, panels on the roof, another angle, blah) but maybe the first photo could mention "photos of the panels on the roof" as that would let me know what those photos are doing there on the page... and the webAIM screen reader survey seemed to support that (results were very clear on why though... )... do whatever makes the info make the most sense when viewed as a pure document and you'll mostly be okay.
by the way of you want to check the previous code check it
Yeah, I get even less there as I don't have Flash player installed on this machine, lawlz. At least you've got some content (and though you're hiding it by default with the CSS, the googles don't load JS or CSS and you've got all the info there in the document so the googles will see all that content which is good... with Flash that's still not so, except with the accessibility text you can add to Flash).