RE: icons for pages/sites/etc. (was Re: src attribute of IFRAME and FRAME)

All this talk about images in web pages reminds me of how the <img> tag has
always been restrictive ... in terms of that if the user agent is a non
graphical device, all that would be shown would be the contents of the "alt"
attribute.  This is OK most of the time, but it would be great to show, say,
formatted ASCII Art or any other alternate HTML for the image.

For example, let's say I wanted to show a logo for a company on a web page
for all devices.  I could use:

<style type="text/css">
<!--
	#companylogo {
		image-url(spaceinvaders.png);
		image-alternate-visibility: hidden-if-image-displayed;	
			/* probably values for this would be more elegant
that this :-) */
		image-description: "Welcome to the Space Invaders Home
Page";
		width: 600;
		height: 100;
		border: none;
	}
-->
</style>
.
.
.
<body>

<div id="companylogo">
<pre>
	##          ##
        ##      ##         
      ##############
    ####  ######  ####     Welcome to the Space Invaders Home Page
  ######################
  ##  ##############  ##      
  ##  ##          ##  ##
        ####  ####
</pre>
</div>

....


So ... for non-graphical user agents would show the formatted HTML alternate
text, which would be awesome for some applications (i.e. ASCII art of graphs
for those graphically challenged).   If the user agent is an audio browser
(e.g. for the blind) then it would read the contents of the
image-description rule.

Heck ... we could even use css2 to show tool tips when a mouse hovers over
the image in a graphical user agent, using this style sheet (assuming I am
using CSS2 correctly):

#companylogo:hover {
		image-alternate-visibility: visible;
	}

#companylogo~pre {
		position: relative;
		top: -10px;
		left: 0px;
		font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", "sans-serif";
		font-size: 10px;
		border: solid;
		background-color: yellow;
}


There are even other possibilities ... but this would be a good example of
how to augment the limited <img> tag.

Even if it is not executed this way (it's not fully thought out ... it came
from the top of my head), I think that the ideas here are worth considering
(he says hopefully)

Z.

------
Zoltan Hawryluk, ZH13, ncc0026
WebMaster, AT&T Canada IES
"Listening is being able to be changed by the other person."


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Tantek Celik
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 6:11 PM
> To: fantasai; www-html@w3.org; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: icons for pages/sites/etc. (was Re: src 
> attribute of IFRAME
> and FRAME)
> 
> 
> From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
> Subject: Re: icons for pages/sites/etc. (was Re: src 
> attribute of IFRAME
> and   FRAME)
> Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2001, 2:53 PM
> 
> >> On another note, since an "icon" for a page is purely 
> presentational, this
> >> really should be done with CSS instead (discussion 
> redirected to www-style).
> >
> > An icon is purely presentation only insofar as any media object is
> > purely presentational.
> 
> Not true.  More like, an icon is purely presentation insofar as a
> background-image in a document is purely presentation.  Both 
> are external
> media resources not necessary for and thus separate from the core
> "content/semantics" of the document.
> 
> > Defined as such, the icon doesn't even need to be visual--one could
> > conceivably have an audio "icon", which would use sound waves/time
> > instead of colors/position. Though I don't know what you'd 
> use it for.
> 
> Defined with CSS the icon doesn't even need to be visual.  A 
> URI for an
> 'icon' property could point to a audio file.
> 
> "Audio icons" are in use all over the place, though they are 
> usually called
> "audio cues" instead.
> 
> Tantek
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 18:14:23 UTC