Is image replacement recommended?

[Alan Silver]

Hello,

At one time, image replacement was recommended as being a good way to
have well structured markup, whilst giving the user something pleasant
visually. However, I have seen a few articles recently saying that it
isn't a good idea as it has accessibility problems.

What is the recommendation? The idea is attractive, but I don't want to
sacrifice accessibility for eye candy. TIA

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)

[David Dorward]

Alan Silver wrote:

At one time, image replacement was recommended as being a good way to
have well structured markup, whilst giving the user something pleasant
visually. However, I have seen a few articles recently saying that it
isn't a good idea as it has accessibility problems.

What is the recommendation?

Depends on who you ask. I'm yet to see a CSS replacement solution that
doesn't have serious accessibility issues. JavaScript solutions leave users
with text that doesn't resize cleanly (PNG doesn't beat TrueType when it
comes to scaling ;).

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[kchayka]

Alan Silver wrote:

At one time, image replacement was recommended as being a good way to
have well structured markup, whilst giving the user something pleasant
visually. However, I have seen a few articles recently saying that it
isn't a good idea as it has accessibility problems.

Image replacement came about, not because of structured markup, but
because it was deemed better for search engines, many of which don't
index alt text. There aren't really any accessibility problems using
<img> elements with proper alt text.

Use eye candy if you want, just be aware of the consequences and
consider what your target audience needs first. Note that your target
audience is not usually search engines, at least not first and foremost.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Spartanicus]

kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:

There aren't really any accessibility problems using
<img> elements with proper alt text.

Apart from the rather fundamental issue that images don't normally scale
to the user's situation, and when specifically coded to do so the effect
is ugly due to browser image resizing, thereby defeating the original
reason for using images of text: prettier text.

--
Spartanicus

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, kchayka wrote:

There aren't really any accessibility problems using
<img> elements with proper alt text.
I've been annoyed, ever since the wretched <img...> tag was introduced
as a proprietary extension, that it had been so badly designed.

The limitations on an attribute value string, relative to real bona-
fide HTML element content, are just maddening. As I said just moments
ago in another posting: that had been recognised at least as early as
the HTML/3.0 drafts, leading first to the <fig...> proposal, which
later became the W3C part of the <object...> specification. That
could have flown, if it hadn't been sunk by enemy action.
Use eye candy if you want, just be aware of the consequences and
consider what your target audience needs first. Note that your
target audience is not usually search engines, at least not first
and foremost.

Well, if readers can't find their way to the content, it's not a lot
of use to them. So I'd rate search engine access "first", although
maybe not "foremost". SCNR.

[kchayka]

Spartanicus wrote:

kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:

There aren't really any accessibility problems using
<img> elements with proper alt text.

Apart from the rather fundamental issue that images don't normally scale

Hey, I'm the first to complain when a stoopid deezyner uses an 8px type
size in graphics. Regardless, the issue you raise is not about
accessibility so much as usability. Two different things, though both
are important.

Either way, a clueful designer is not only likely to be more conscious
of type size, but also more conscious of the specific alt text on those
graphics. Disable images and the site will still be usable.

Seems to me the person who posed the question wants to be in the clueful
group, not the stoopid group. Knowing the facts will help him make
better decisions, methinks.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Spartanicus]

kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:

There aren't really any accessibility problems using
<img> elements with proper alt text.
Apart from the rather fundamental issue that images don't normally scale

Hey, I'm the first to complain when a stoopid deezyner uses an 8px type
size in graphics. Regardless, the issue you raise is not about
accessibilit y so much as usability.

Non scaling text is first and foremost an accessibility issue. The
problem manifests itself by not adapting to the user's settings, not
just when a user tries to vary the text size.
Two different things, though both
are important.

Either way, a clueful designer is not only likely to be more conscious
of type size, but also more conscious of the specific alt text on those
graphics. Disable images and the site will still be usable.

Amongst average users few would know how to disable images, even fewer
would be aware that doing so could make certain texts legible.

--
Spartanicus

[Alan Silver]

In article <49************ @individual.net >, kchayka <us****@c-net.us>
writes

Image replacement came about, not because of structured markup, but
because it was deemed better for search engines, many of which don't
index alt text. There aren't really any accessibility problems using
<img> elements with proper alt text.

No, but there is still a structural issue. If you have a page heading,
and put it in an <h1> tag, then structurally it is considered a header,
even if you replace it with an image in CSS. If you use an <img> tag,
then there is no structural indication of it being a header.

Maybe this is more to do with search engines than accessibility though.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)

[Alan Silver]

In article <49************ @individual.net >, kchayka <us****@c-net.us>
writes

Seems to me the person who posed the question wants to be in the
clueful group, not the stoopid group. Knowing the facts will help him
make better decisions, methinks.

Well, it's the first time I've not been called stoopid (or some other
epithet) for a while!!

Yes I want to do it right, but I also want to make it pretty. I guess it
is unlikely I'll be able to do both. Thanks to all for the replies, it's
been interesting reading, and has made me think carefully about why I
even want to do it in the first place.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)

[Chris Morris]

Alan Silver <al*********@no spam.thanx.inva lid> writes:

In article <49************ @individual.net >, kchayka <us****@c-net.us>
writes

Image replacement came about, not because of structured markup, but
because it was deemed better for search engines, many of which don't
index alt text. There aren't really any accessibility problems using
<img> elements with proper alt text.

No, but there is still a structural issue. If you have a page heading,
and put it in an <h1> tag, then structurally it is considered a
header, even if you replace it with an image in CSS. If you use an
<img> tag, then there is no structural indication of it being a header.

<h1><img src="..." alt="..." ...></h1>

(Still doesn't solve the search engine issue, of course, but I think
image replacement techniques are the wrong approach for that too)

--
Chris