Sent by Spartanicus on 22 June 2004 16:04
"Chris Heilmann" [EMAIL-REMOVED]> wrote:
>>>I've been reading up a lot about this topic lately, and to me it seems
>>>Javascript Image Replacement is the best bet at the moment, as even if
>>>people have JS disabled, they will be able to see the text, whereas
>>>with most CSS _hacks_, there is always someone who gets screwed.
>>
>> So you are prepared to deny images to the estimated 10% of users who
>> have js disabled?
>
>You mean this is worse than risking people not seeing anything when they
>have CSS enabled but images disabled?
That signals a problem at a lower level: inappropriate usage of css
image replacement. "Correctly" used replaced images have no content,
they are decorative only, thus they *should* disappear completely when
the content is accessed sans images (but with css).
Alas the latter is impossible to achieve since css image replacement
methods fail to free up the canvas space occupied by these elements.
--
Spartanicus
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
