Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass
ary 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'

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Thomas Thomassen
ary 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

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[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 s

RE: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Likely, James A.
p.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 users who browse with images disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Dave Woods
t: 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 completely. > > Likely, James A. wrote: > > Thanks for the em

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass
al Message - From: "Christian Snodgrass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 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 re

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Thomas Thomassen
"Christian Snodgrass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 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

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass
nd? Thanks 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 J

RE: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Likely, James A.
know 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&

RE: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Likely, James A.
Thanks 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, bu

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass
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 them up correctly then there'

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-23 Thread Jixor - Stephen I
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 s

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-23 Thread Nick Fitzsimons
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 ha

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-23 Thread Christian Snodgrass
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

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-23 Thread Dave Woods
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 problems