W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: No ALT place to go from CSS background images. The frustrating Australian situation

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:48:31 +0100
Message-ID: <47048CBF.4050405@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: WAI Interest Group list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Tim wrote:
> 

> For example, all the header graphics in all my pages are animated 
> background gif files from CSS stylesheets, seven different ones. Have a 

Background images shouldn't be used for real content.  If you are going 
to use CSS to do image replacement, you should use the content 
attribute, although this may mean many browsers display the plain text.

(I've actually seen cases where background images were used for controls 
and using a non-IE browser resulted in misalignment and an unusable site.)

There is another controversy as to whether even background imagery 
should be described for accessibility, which I'm not addressing here, 
although my feeling is that that is not necessary.

There are, of course, no alt tags in HTML, only alt attributes.

Incidentally, the colours are a problem.  They are over saturated, and 
the purple, in particular, is subject to chromatic aberration, because 
the eye's focus for red is not exactly that for, say, green.  I think 
the black background exacerbates this, as it causes the eye's pupil to 
dilate and the depth of focus to reduce.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 06:49:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:27 GMT