Douglas Bowman has an article that goes in depth on one of the image replacement techniques, and there are links to other techniques at the bottom of the article:
http://www.stopdesign.com/also/articles/replace_text/ ---- Original Message ---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Image replace or ALT text? Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:39:10 +1100 > >Cameron Adams wrote: >> It reminded me as to a point I'd thought about >> regarding background image replacement. Sure, using a >> ul with visually hidden text and background images for >> navigation is semantically correct, but wasn't it much >> better in the old days when you used an actual image >> with alt text and you knew what something was even >> before it loaded. Especially important for navigation items. > >Interesting, I'd never thought of the drawbacks of the various image >replacement techniques in regards to showing text while images load. > >Personally, I *hate* having images as navigation items, mostly >because if >(when) the navigation changes, you'll need to create new graphics for >it. I >usually have a generic background image, with the text part of the >nav item >as actual text. Obviously this isn't really an option for headers >etc. when >the client wants some particular font for branding purposes or >whatever. > >As a complete aside - what the hell ever happened to embedded fonts? >AFAIK >it's still part of the CSS spec, and IE & NS4 implemented it pretty >well, >but Moz seems to have dropped it completely. It seems (to me, anyway) >to be >the perfect answer - create a downloadable version of whatever crazy >font >you need, control the letter spacing etc. with CSS, add your >gradient/picture of a cat/whatever as a background image, and voila! >no need >for any of this other text-hiding craziness. > >Anyway, I think you are probably quite right: if you have a dire need >for a >bunch of images-as-nav-items, then they would be more usable as >images - >definitely less semantically correct, possibly even less accessible, >but >more usable nonetheless. > >> I'm aware of image replacement techniques that also >> allow you to see text when the image isn't there, but >> they seem very clumsy, so I'm asking whether the old >> skool method's usability outweighs its unfashionable >> unsemanticness. > >What are some of these techniques? I don't think I've seen any that >do that >around (not that I've looked very hard, mind you :) > >-- > Lindsay Evans. > Developer, > Red Square Productions. > > [p] 8596.4000 > [f] 8596.4001 > [w] www.redsquare.com.au > >***************************************************** >The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ >***************************************************** > Regards, David McDonald Web Designer http://www.davidmcdonald.org ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
