2 replies [Last post]
gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 13 years 37 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

heya,

just back from WE'04 conference and I have tonnes of quesions lingering now...

they mentioned that the <img> tag should be used sparingly. That all decorative and non-essential images should be background images rather that <img> elements. (for example with rounded corners, etc.)

does this mean that the only <img> elements should be links? or logos? or is that too drastic?

any thoughts?

cheers.

co2
co2's picture
Offline
Leader
UK
Last seen: 13 years 41 weeks ago
UK
Joined: 2003-09-17
Posts: 721
Points: 0

background images the standard?

Thoughts, er... yeh. This is particularly beneficial for such occurences (as you've stated) of graphical elements that, when separated (i.e. the css either breaks, is turned off, or not fully supported) from their construct (such as a round-cornered panel etc.) they leave a mess of images in a basic structured HTML page.

Images such as these do not and are not meant to add anything to the content or semantic structure of the information, hence, tucking them away removes them from being an unnecessary part of the content.

Logos and quasi-essential elements which can be argued to be essential to the structure, I guess, are valid images within the text, especially where company branding is concerned and required.

The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. Discuss...

gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 13 years 37 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

background images the standard?

that makes sense... think css off, then think about what actually needs to be there still under those circumstances....

cheers