- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:35:11 -0500
- To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Anton Prowse<prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote: > @Tab: sorry, I didn't receive your message until after sending my > previous one. No problem. > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> I don't know whether or not it's still relevant (I've stopped doing >> it, myself, in favor of practices that more directly lean on >> accessibility features) > > (Care to expand on these practices?) If at all possible, I use purely decorative background images combined with styled and positioned real text. That's the absolute best situation, and it'll get easier as we get font format interop in @font-face. It's surprising how often I can do this, though - for the most part you want readable text in your buttons, and that means fairly traditional fonts, which I can generally rely on being installed. When I can't do that, I use <img alt>. This means that I'm basically embedding presentational information (the location of the image) in the HTML, but it's easy and guaranteed accessible to *anyone*. The upkeep problems are minimized in my case as I use this technique mainly only in the overall site template - I've trained Advertising to keep things a little simpler in the content area of their designs. > However, as far as text-indent being poisoned goes, when used without > overflow:hidden it's no different from any other technique which relies > on off-screen clipping, including simple negative margins etc, any of > which could theoretically be being used to address more or less the same > issue. The thing that's poisoned is off-screen clipping itself; alas > it's certainly not realistic to change this curious behaviour now. Oh, indeed. I was just bringing up something relevant to the conversation that not everyone may have remembered. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 15:36:10 UTC