David Dorward wrote:
HTML comes with built in methods of providing alternative content for
pretty much everything that isn't text. There's no need to try to turn
the concept upside down and have text replaced with other content
using CSS - it doesn't work as well.
If anything, I'm suggesting markup content that's 'stronger' than alt
tags. Removing significant text content is not my game at all.
> What does being a graphic designer have to do with not using the
> mechanism built into HTML to provide graphical content with an
> accessible, text-based fallback, but instead using CSS to create a
> similar, but less accessible, effect?
I think there's been a horrible misunderstanding somewhere. I don't
think anybody in this conversation has made any false moves as regards
accessibility.
I am talking about visual content defined by CSS that isn't in the scope
of <img>s, yet may need alternative text content for those without
visual reference... Which can be handled in a great many ways, and could
be handled in many more (CSS is constantly evolving, I'm not suggesting
anything's being coldly ignored by the powers that be). 'Images' is a
very limited way to address many visual semantics a designer may wish to
incorporate into a site, and occasionally those semantics may be
arguably crucial rather than additional - in which case some clever use
of markup/styling is needed.
As much as this sounds like dodgy territory, I don't think the practical
examples I suggested way back in the thread (unorthodox styling in
headers) caused that much of a problem (apart from the invalid <div>
within <h1>). If they did, please refer back to them (all observations
are useful!) - but I fear we're getting rather vague and argumentative here.
Regards,
Barney
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************