Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?
You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images
disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so
, 2008 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base:
1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable
2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up
as the default (to me, this isn't acceptable
, January 26, 2008 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base:
1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable
2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up as
the default (to me, this isn't
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
*Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?
You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup
- From: Christian Snodgrass
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand,
most have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it
fails
as this is new to me.
Thanks
James
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Dave Woods
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
The first question I'd ask
Of *Dave Woods
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of
trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's
really no better
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of
trying to replicate them? If you mark
again for the help.
James
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
That isn't bad, but if you have
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand, most
have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form.
However
Hello,
I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a
problem that I have.
I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a
checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work
best. Using background images or adding images to the
The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying
to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no
better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant.
If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of
Basically, here is the simplest way to answer this question. Is there
meaningful and important alt text you can give the image, or is their
something they'd miss out on without the image or alt text?. If the
answer is yes, use images. If not, then use background images.
Basically, background
On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:29, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
[quote]
Although, in your specific case, I would go with what Dave Woods said. If
you really want those image check boxes, use normal check boxes, and then
use Javascript to swap those out for your image ones. With that solution,
if they don't
Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:29, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
[quote]
Although, in your specific case, I would go with what Dave Woods said. If
you really want those image check boxes, use normal check boxes, and then
use Javascript to swap those out for your image ones. With that
16 matches
Mail list logo
