Emrah BASKAYA wrote:
I disagree with the syntax of
this, but not the idea. The problem is "onimageload" suggests that
this should be the color on ALL image loading. Remember that CSS3 also
has a method of adding foreground images in CSS, through the global
'content' property. What you're suggesting sounds like it should only
work with background-image (though it may be better to have it work
with both; but this might be difficult).
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:59:46 +0300, Jasper Bryant-Greene
Emrah BASKAYA wrote:
A new background-color value that tells us
which color value to switch to when image is loaded:
To me this seems dangerously like mixing behavioural information in
with presentational information.
It is no more or less behavioral than element:hover.
And yet, I fail to see the danger in it other than providing an
accessibility solution. I hope you don't mind eloborating what the
is before dissmissing by saying 'it is dangerous'. Otherwise, from your
stance, I can assume you do not need any solution to this problem, or
consider it not a problem as you do not produce an alternative. And
your point of view, no solution seems possible, because images being
loaded or not will always stay 'dangerously' behavioural.
Websites that look better that can be made in shorter time and easily
allowing a design change and less work hours and *still* be accessible
a number of occasions pose no threat to me.
Here's the info at hand:
*Transparent images saves you time, allows you to do flexible designs,
re-use existing assets on different part of the page or on another
reduce bandwith costs immensely.
*Image is a part of presentation.
*Images have to be loaded. Loading it is a behaviour that is optional.
*Images may not be loaded ->
*Due to network failure
*User has switched off images
*User Agent with no image capability (e.g. still running on @media
*Images always load with some latency, as they require seperate http
calls. So we have problem even if the user has turned on images due to
*larger number of images used on page
*We -have to- cover for the lack of images. I think we agree on this?
*Therefore we must use a contrasting bg-color with the text-color. No
person would say no to this.
*Then we cannot use transparent images, as it is pointless.
So what you're telling the accessibility aware web authors is->
*You can't use transparent images.
*For each little design change, work multiple times longer than the
who use transparent images, if you want your design to look as good.
*Or make sites that are accessible but don't look as good as can be.
*Why use images anyway?
What many will do is:
*Simply start using multibit alpha images, not caring for
The reason this hasn't yet taken off is because IE was not supporting
PNG's properly. But this is changing with IE7.
I really don't want to discuss anymore about why transparent images are
beneficial I won't try to prove that they are. We should have gotten
that point. If you have any alternative solution that makes sense and
more logical than this, please join the discussion. If you don't,
ignore this post, and I'm afraid this may be all I'm going to get in
Also, while we're discussing accessibility, wouldn't it be useful for
CSS to have some kind of syntax that tells the browser if either the
background-color or text-color is user-overridden, the opposing colors
should be shifted to a 'negative' color? As it is, changing text color
or background color on any site is dangerous because the user may
override one but not the other, leading to problems with accessibility
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ - Get Firefox!
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ - Reclaim Your Inbox!
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.