On Sep 11, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

Quoting "Tee G. Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

If it's decorative image, why not make it to background image? This is
most appropriate way to handle it, and you don't need to worry about
blank alt tag.

Depending on the situation, it's not always possible to add images as non-repeating CSS. For instance, think of a CMS environment with multiple, non-technical authors using a WYSIWYG plugin/editor. It's unrealistic in those situations to expect those authors to assign an ID to a container element, add appropriate padding, and set the image as CSS background (also often they won't even be able to add CSS in the first place).

For hand-crafted pages, done by a web artisan, it's true that using CSS is the more elegant solution. It's just not appropriate in all situations at this point.


Hmmm, I didn't think about that. My clients asked me how to add *decorative* images by themselves, I asked are they any meaning/ purpose of those images, are they echo to your content, they said no I just wanted my page looks nice in certain area. I told them sorry you can't do that, because if it's decorative purposes I already took care of it in the CSS.

To me, an decorative object is something that pleases or upsets my eyes, it may bring up an emotion, but taking it away (or without adding extra later on), the purpose of the 'website' is still complete. Those photos in Flicker, are not decorative images to me.

I guess this is just how one interprets 'decorative' :)

tee


*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************

Reply via email to