Image replacement - Can it be clickable?

[Kerberos]

I followed Dan Cederholm's image replacement tutorial, to replace a header
tag by a logo. The h1 is clickable if no CSS is applied but it I replace
it by the logo, the area isn't clickable anymore when I pass the mouse
over the logo. Is there a way to replace a link by an image that will
still be clickable?
Thanks,

--

Kerberos.

http://www.opera.com
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.auriance.com
http://www.osresources.com
http://exodus.jabberstudio.org

[Steve Pugh]

Kerberos <[e-mail] > wrote:

I followed Dan Cederholm's image replacement tutorial, to replace a header
tag by a logo.
Is there a reason not to just have an image in there?
It's simpler and more accessible.
The h1 is clickable if no CSS is applied but it I replace
it by the logo, the area isn't clickable anymore when I pass the mouse
over the logo. Is there a way to replace a link by an image that will
still be clickable?

Yes. Make sure that the <a> element still exists and that it fills the
full area of the heading. display: block; takes care of the second
part. The first part depends on exactly how you're hiding the real
heading.

Steve

[logic_earth]

Steve Pugh wrote:

Is there a reason not to just have an image in there?
It's simpler and more accessible.

Actully using the image replace ment is very accessible if done right.

[Steve Pugh]

"logic_eart h" <Th****@gd-studio.com> wrote:

Steve Pugh wrote:

Is there a reason not to just have an image in there?
It's simpler and more accessible.

Actully using the image replace ment is very accessible if done right.

The people who promote it claim that it is but the reality is somewhat
different.

Look at a page that uses it with CSS on and Images Off. Some variants
try to solve that issue but seem to end up introducing other problems.

Steve

[Michael Fesser]

.oO(logic_earth )

Actully using the image replace ment is very accessible if done right.

_All_ image replacement techniques I've seen so far failed with CSS
on/images off. I don't consider that accessible.

Micha

[Spartanicus]

Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.ne t> wrote:

Actully using the image replace ment is very accessible if done right.

_All_ image replacement techniques I've seen so far failed with CSS
on/images off. I don't consider that accessible.

You are behind the times:
http://www.mezzoblue.com/tests/revis...e-replacement/

The Gilder/Levin method works quite well.

--
Spartanicus

[Steve Pugh]

Spartanicus <[e-mail] > wrote:

Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.ne t> wrote:

Actully using the image replace ment is very accessible if done right.

_All_ image replacement techniques I've seen so far failed with CSS
on/images off. I don't consider that accessible.

You are behind the times:
http://www.mezzoblue.com/tests/revis...e-replacement/

The Gilder/Levin method works quite well.

Breaks at larger font sizes - if the text version needs more space
than the background image then the text starts to leak out from under
the image. Setting overflow: hidden; fixes that but then we're back to
a position where it fails for CSS on, Images off.

Steve

[Spartanicus]

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > wrote:

The Gilder/Levin method works quite well.

Breaks at larger font sizes - if the text version needs more space
than the background image then the text starts to leak out from under
the image.

I know, that's why I said "quite well". But this does not constitute
"broken" in my vocabulary, I'd classify that merely as a cosmetic quirk.

I'm not a fan of image replacement techniques, I use only one instance
of it on the index page of my personal site. There it holds up up to
200% zooming, above that the text starts leaking out from under the
image.

The only reason I used it was to see how well it worked (or not), after
having used it the only valid reason for using it is imo if it is
imperative that the text is indexed by SEs.

The proper way remains specifying the image's text as alt content, but
I'm not aware of any SE that indexes alt content in this type of
construct:

<h1><img src="fancyheade r.png" alt="fancy header text"></h1>

I can imagine a (commercial) situation where indexing of the above by
SEs is vital.

--
Spartanicus

[Christoph Paeper]

*Spartanicus* <[e-mail] >:

The proper way remains specifying the image's text as alt content,
You can still have CSS image replacement with this (even without server-
or client-side scripting):
<http://webdesign.criss ov.de/temp/ciwas/image-replacement>.
but I'm not aware of any SE that indexes alt content in this type of
construct:

<h1><img src="fancyheade r.png" alt="fancy header text"></h1>

<h1><object data="fancyhead er.png">fancy header text</object></h1>

should be easier to parse for them, but you'll in turn have problems with
browsers.

--
Your ad here!

[Spartanicus]

Christoph Paeper <ch************ **@nurfuerspam. de> wrote:

The proper way remains specifying the image's text as alt content,
You can still have CSS image replacement with this

You seem to think that I want image replacement, I do not. Image
replacement techniques are nasty hacks, the only valid reason I can
think of for using it is, as I mentioned, situations where it is
imperative that the text content is indexed by SEs. The fact that an
image's alt content isn't indexed by SEs is a flaw in current SEs, it's
not a flaw in the coding method.
<http://webdesign.criss ov.de/temp/ciwas/image-replacement>.

I fail to see the point of this, it's an image replacement technique
(bad), that doesn't fix the one practical problem that the proper
solution suffers from.

--
Spartanicus