Hello everybody.
I have a question:
When an image is presented with one or more paragraphs of text, if the
image is relevant to the text in a symbolic way, but does not
technically add to the content, should it be displayed as an image
within the content, or should it be rendered with CSS?
Hi John,
There are perfectly valid reasons for using css to generate imagery, and
perfectly valid reasons for using the img tag to do the same. I think
some developers/designers go too far sometimes in trying to use css as
their miracle tool to the detriment of a) the website's accessibility
David Dixon wrote:
I would even go as far as saying that
example wheelchair image DOES technically add to the content (its a
visual representation of a disabled/wheelchair bound person, and an
important visual clue as to the purpose of the content (what do you
notice first, the wheelchair
http://66.155.251.18/mlinc.com/test/index2.html
Designer wrote:
How strange - it fits on mine down to 800 by 600, but if I have the
font-size set at anything but 'smallest', it doesn't! And once it's
'gone wrong it's hard to get it right again! I'm talking about
IE6/winXP, viewed via the
I'm of the opinion that if images are *not* informative or functional
(merely decorative) that they should be rendered with CSS.
If they are informative or functional (i.e. graphic images for
navigation, headings, etc.) I think they should be part of the html
document and have a relevant alt
The argument you have brought up here Patrick is a fundamental reason
why I treat usability and accessibility as two sides of the same coin.
You are probably correct that if using a screen reader, the user would
more than likely get the same information from the page, however the
flow at
David Dixon wrote:
You are probably correct that if using a screen reader, the user would
more than likely get the same information from the page, however the
flow at which they get the information would not be the same as someone
without visual impairment. That is the difference from making
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
David Dixon wrote:
You are probably correct that if using a screen reader, the user would
more than likely get the same information from the page, however the
flow at which they get the information would not be the same as
someone without visual impairment. That is
Apologies for the previous message. It was a TAB - ENTER keyboard
combination at exactly the WRONG place.
Mark Sheppard wrote:
I'm of the opinion that if images are *not* informative or functional
(merely decorative) that they should be rendered with CSS.
...
The alt text, in my opinion,
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Fine, I'll agree to disagree with you here then. To me, having the ALT
text in there
Accessibility Testing Consulting - A wheelchair. A symbol for
accessibility - Accessibility is a term...
Is redundant, compared to
Accessibility Testing Consulting -
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I don't read it like this.
For me, the former says a graphic representing a wheelchair is a symbol for
accessibility.
The latter skips that info.
But does that stop you from understanding the page, carrying out any
functionality offered by the page, etc? Because going
David Dixon wrote:
you can use the alt attribute to describe the image itself
which would vastly improve the accessibility (eg. An image of a
wheelchair, a symbol for accessibility).
No, that's a bad example of alt text. The alt text should serve the
same purpose as the image, not
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I don't read it like this.
For me, the former says a graphic representing a wheelchair is a
symbol for accessibility.
The latter skips that info.
But does that stop you from understanding the page, carrying out any
functionality offered by
Actually, yeah, you are completely correct. The alt text I showed was a
pretty poor choice on my part. Again, I still would not have the alt
text as empty in this case, as it is my impression that the images add
to the surrounding text... where in the text does it say that a
wheelchair is a
I think I may have cut myself short on that last paragraph, but
hopefully you get the idea of what I was attempting to explain :)
I wrote (about 30 secs ago):
Actually, yeah, you are completely correct. The alt text I showed was a
pretty poor choice on my part. Again, I still would not have
David Dixon wrote:
I would probably revise the img tag itself to read something like:
img src=/images/accessibility.jpg width=100 height=89 alt=The
imagery of a person on a wheelchair is generally considered a symbol for
accessibility title=An image of a wheelchair: the symbol for
Forgive me for my interference, howevercould not the
text used in the alt and titletags, itself be the deciding factor whether
or not it is applicable to the content?
The instance of use is subjectiveto reason of use.
If a icon (and these are)is used, it is most often used tocall
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
David Dixon wrote:
I would probably revise the img tag itself to read something like:
img src=/images/accessibility.jpg width=100 height=89 alt=The
imagery of a person on a wheelchair is generally considered a symbol
for accessibility title=An image of a wheelchair:
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
The level of viablity is what I'm after at this point. Do all spam-bots
disguise themselves as common UAs?
One fellow doing a fair bit of research in this area is incredibill -
http://incredibill.blogspot.com/ (umm, language warning...)
He might have
So, the redeeming feature of your script might be your use of the #064; :)
Well, I'm turning e-mail addresses to things like this:
a
href=mai#108;#116;#111;#58;#102;#111;#111;#64;#101;#120;#97;#109;#112;#108;#101;#46;#99;#111;#109;foo#160;(at)#160;exam#173;ple.com/a
and sometimes even mixing
I would like to contribute this article to this discussion. Not everyone
will agree with my thinking, but it may offer some value.
http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=81
Sincerely,
Mike Cherim
http://green-beast.com/
http://accessites.org/
http://graybit.com/
Jan Brasna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm turning e-mail addresses to things like this:
a
href=mai#108;#116;#111;#58;#102;#111;#111;#64;#101;#120;#97;#109;#112;#108;#101;#46;#99;#111;#109;foo#160;(at)#160;exam#173;ple.com/a
and sometimes even mixing up with not only #xxx entities but
22 matches
Mail list logo
