If I'm not mistaken, the font characters are inserted through CSS. So the html wil be something like <i class=icon-search></i>, which doesn't have any SEO meaning. But with the css content(), the character is added, so becomes visible on the screen. Not 100% sure it doesn't affect search engines, but i think not.
(doesn't work in IE7 yet though; https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/38) On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Phil Doughty <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm curious which is better in terms of valid semantic markup > & flexibility. > I most probably have this all wrong but from what I understand background > image glyphicons would probably be more valid but has less flexibility in > terms of design sizing. > But if we used a glyf font the design options would be more but the > content(read by search engines) would most likely be read as an out of > context character. > Any Thoughts... > -- > > Phil Doughty > > *T*: +971 50 8879936 > > > > On 9 May 2012 14:37, Faz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> The only way would be to use background-size property but If the bg size >> change, every bg-position defined in the css won't be correct anymore >> Increasing the container can be done simply by using a margin. It will have >> the same visual effect >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Faz" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]>, < >> [email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Making glyphicons larger >> Date: Wed, May 9, 2012 12:10 pm >> >> Do you want a bigger icon or, a bigger icon container ? >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Andrew" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Making glyphicons larger >> Date: Wed, May 9, 2012 11:49 am >> >> Hello, >> >> I am trying to override the default glyphicons size. Trying these >> approaches didn't work: >> >> .i { >> [class*=" icon-"] { >> width: 24px; >> height: 24px; >> background-position: 24px 24px; >> } >> } >> >> or >> >> [class*=" icon-"] { >> width: 24px; >> height: 24px; >> background-position: 24px 24px; >> } >> >> Does anyone know of a better approach? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andrew >> > >
