From: "David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
... but if you are replacing text with an image, then you're
replacing
content with the image, so presumably the image conveys the same
content? So it isn't purely presentational.
Precisely,
Your arguments fully address the logical layer :-)
Image replacement, using CSS, was invented to allow people to make
navigation menus or headings that fit a certain graphical look. FIR
might better be labeled as Faux-Images. The only possible argument in
favor of using FIR over embedding a real image with a meanigful ALT
attribute would be one involving how search engines weigh pure text
versus the ALT attribute. There is no other strong argument in its
favor, unless one is simply talking about purely decorative images -
and I don't believe this topic was ever really about that.
As for accessibility, no image replacement technique, where the
background image conveys meaning, should be considered unless it works
not just for assistive readers, but for people who disable images.
There are a few that work well that way, but then you must way the
complexity of the markup and CSS versus a simple image tag, which is
handled perfectly by even my Lynx browser.
--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday".
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
