Hiding 'skip nav' links (was Re: [WSG] Image replace or ALT text?)
El jue, 19-02-2004 a las 03:56, Tim Lucas escribió: the source document. People that claim that image replacement is more accessible than img tags are simply wrong. They are just as wrong as those who claim their website is more accessible because they include a div style=display: none;a href=#navSkip to navigation/a/div in the top of their document as most user agents ignore display:none [1]. Regarding this subject, i'd like to point people to these resources on providing accesible 'skip nav' links while avoiding display:none http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk/articles/archives/000180.php http://blog.tom.me.uk/2003/09/13/skipadeedoodah.php#tools HTH -- Manuel González Noriega Simplelógica, construcción web URL: http://simplelogica.net EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TELEFONO: (+34) 985 22 12 65 Logicola es el weblog de Simplelógica http://simplelogica.net/logicola/ /pThat's right. We said Frontpage./p * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
RE: [WSG] Image replace or ALT text?
Cameron Adams wrote: It reminded me as to a point I'd thought about regarding background image replacement. Sure, using a ul with visually hidden text and background images for navigation is semantically correct, but wasn't it much better in the old days when you used an actual image with alt text and you knew what something was even before it loaded. Especially important for navigation items. Interesting, I'd never thought of the drawbacks of the various image replacement techniques in regards to showing text while images load. Personally, I *hate* having images as navigation items, mostly because if (when) the navigation changes, you'll need to create new graphics for it. I usually have a generic background image, with the text part of the nav item as actual text. Obviously this isn't really an option for headers etc. when the client wants some particular font for branding purposes or whatever. As a complete aside - what the hell ever happened to embedded fonts? AFAIK it's still part of the CSS spec, and IE NS4 implemented it pretty well, but Moz seems to have dropped it completely. It seems (to me, anyway) to be the perfect answer - create a downloadable version of whatever crazy font you need, control the letter spacing etc. with CSS, add your gradient/picture of a cat/whatever as a background image, and voila! no need for any of this other text-hiding craziness. Anyway, I think you are probably quite right: if you have a dire need for a bunch of images-as-nav-items, then they would be more usable as images - definitely less semantically correct, possibly even less accessible, but more usable nonetheless. I'm aware of image replacement techniques that also allow you to see text when the image isn't there, but they seem very clumsy, so I'm asking whether the old skool method's usability outweighs its unfashionable unsemanticness. What are some of these techniques? I don't think I've seen any that do that around (not that I've looked very hard, mind you :) -- Lindsay Evans. Developer, Red Square Productions. [p] 8596.4000 [f] 8596.4001 [w] www.redsquare.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
RE: [WSG] Image replace or ALT text?
Douglas Bowman has an article that goes in depth on one of the image replacement techniques, and there are links to other techniques at the bottom of the article: http://www.stopdesign.com/also/articles/replace_text/ Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Image replace or ALT text? Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:39:10 +1100 Cameron Adams wrote: It reminded me as to a point I'd thought about regarding background image replacement. Sure, using a ul with visually hidden text and background images for navigation is semantically correct, but wasn't it much better in the old days when you used an actual image with alt text and you knew what something was even before it loaded. Especially important for navigation items. Interesting, I'd never thought of the drawbacks of the various image replacement techniques in regards to showing text while images load. Personally, I *hate* having images as navigation items, mostly because if (when) the navigation changes, you'll need to create new graphics for it. I usually have a generic background image, with the text part of the nav item as actual text. Obviously this isn't really an option for headers etc. when the client wants some particular font for branding purposes or whatever. As a complete aside - what the hell ever happened to embedded fonts? AFAIK it's still part of the CSS spec, and IE NS4 implemented it pretty well, but Moz seems to have dropped it completely. It seems (to me, anyway) to be the perfect answer - create a downloadable version of whatever crazy font you need, control the letter spacing etc. with CSS, add your gradient/picture of a cat/whatever as a background image, and voila! no need for any of this other text-hiding craziness. Anyway, I think you are probably quite right: if you have a dire need for a bunch of images-as-nav-items, then they would be more usable as images - definitely less semantically correct, possibly even less accessible, but more usable nonetheless. I'm aware of image replacement techniques that also allow you to see text when the image isn't there, but they seem very clumsy, so I'm asking whether the old skool method's usability outweighs its unfashionable unsemanticness. What are some of these techniques? I don't think I've seen any that do that around (not that I've looked very hard, mind you :) -- Lindsay Evans. Developer, Red Square Productions. [p] 8596.4000 [f] 8596.4001 [w] www.redsquare.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * Regards, David McDonald Web Designer http://www.davidmcdonald.org * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
RE: [WSG] Image replace or ALT text?
There's an IR technique with text here: http://levin.grundeis.net/files/20030809/alternatefir.html __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
