Re: Images as alternatives to text instead of the reverse

in traditional printing, as you probably know, titles are sometimes in
specially cast display type. I feel this is like using a graphic.

<h1><img src="title.gif" alt="Title"></h1>

Also there is the case of a company logo. Logos are generally graphic and
not set as type in printing.

<h1><img src="logo.gif" alt="My Company"></h1>

What I am getting at is that it may be inappropriate to use css to create
things that are customarily created as a whole by a graphic artist. The
content *should* be a graphic.  Otherwise, the only solution would be to
have a style language capable of rendering a complex graphic.

I see nothing wrong with using images in the same manner they have been for
many years, as display type. I don't see it as an alternate rendering of
text content. I understand that if no textual description is provided, the
content of the logo can not be indexed or searched for. Maybe that is unique
to the web and has to be addressed, but we do have alt text and as you say
<object> coming.

Maybe you have a different view or can correct me if I am wrong.


At 12:50 PM 8/21/96 +0000, you wrote:
>On Aug 21,  1:37am, Stephanos Piperoglou wrote:
>> <H1 ALIGN=center><IMG SRC="images/worldport_logo-big.jpg"
>> ALT="WorldPort"></H1>
>> This is nice, usually. When the image is displayed, it is shown as the
>> title, and when it is not, the ALT text is rendered as Heading 1 text. (on
>> an aside: is this correct and expected browser behaviour?)
>This is what I would expect and seems to be what current text-oriented UAs do.
>Since we are stuck with IMG having no content, until OBJECT is widely
>implemented, this is best.
   _/     Steve Knoblock 
   _/     City Gallery - History of Photography
   _/     Member:  National Stereoscopic Association