As much as using 1 image and shifting the background seems, as you would say, `hacky`, as far as w3 is concerned it would rather have you use that way.
1. Less Images - Less Images = Less HTTP calls = Better 2. Less Code - Less Code = Faster call... yes i know its not very much difference, but it could make a difference if you are coding a fairly large site with a lot of JS.. it could mean the difference between 1 HTTP packet and 2 Just some food for thought =D On Jun 22, 1:03 pm, howa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I completely agree CSS can do the job > > but IMHO, css's ways are even more `hacky` > > i.e. use of single image and simply shift the background > > think abt it, this is accessibility evil! > > On 6月22日, 下午1時16分, "Ambient.Impact" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I very much disagree with the following two points: > > > On Jun 21, 10:51 pm, "howard chen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 2. Put rollover stuffs into CSS is no good: CSS for layout & design, > > > JS for effect > > > 1. CSS can't preload image, the plugin can > > > 2. This is a subject that's certainly debatable, so I won't fault you > > for opting to use JavaScript to handle this effect. However, I > > personally think rollovers ARE part of the design. They certainly do > > have a certain amount of "behaviour" to them, but CSS offers a simpler > > and more lightweight way of achieving this effect, and it works if > > JavaScript is unavailable. But that's simply my opinion. > > > 1. This is the more important thing I wanted to comment on. While it > > IS true that CSS rollovers are NOT preloaded if you swap out an image > > on hover, you can get around this quite elegantly if you use a > > different approach: use a single image and simply shift the background- > > position. Two well-known pieces on the subject: > > >http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/http://www.wellstyled.com/... > > > I hope anyone reading this makes an informed decision about choosing > > how to tackle this problem. JavaScript isn't the only option.
