img element versus css url link for image
emekadavid
img
element or as a css url reference. I see lots of website designers
make use
of both a lot, i.e they mix up both ways even in the same page. Is
there any
strategy or advantage to any of the two ways or just a propensity on
their
part?
thanks
--
ich bin ein berliner
Jonathan N. Little
The IMG is for use when the image is part of the content of the page,
e.g., a picture of your dog Spot. And images referenced in stylesheets
are *background* images that are part of the decor, not content; e.g.,
oooo look I've made my webpage look like it is written on a piece of
college-rule notebook paper!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Adrienne Boswell
<nnaemek...@gmail.com> writing in news:1d82b641-da9c-4e24-a727-
4d4a65...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
I'm not sure exactly what you're on about, but I will tell you my
thoughts on what I think you're talking about.
Basically, I use CSS for decorative images, and img for actual images,
eg. those images that would not use an empty alt attribute, eg:
#header {background-image:url(bglogo.png); background-repeat:repeat;}
#header h1 {background-image:url(logo.png);background-repeat:no-repeat;}
#header h1 span {visibility:hidden;}
img {border:0;}
<div id="header">
<h1><span>Acme Cat Company</span></h1>
</div>
<div id="content">
<p>Here is a picture of our favorite cat, Rolo.</p>
<p><a href="rolo_large.png" title="View larger image of Rolo the
Computer Cat"><img src="rolo.png" alt="Picture of Rolo the Computer
Cat" height="100" width="100"><br>Larger image of Rolo</a></p>
<p>Another picture of Rolo:<br>
<img src="rolo2.png" alt="Rolo on the porch" width="200" height="150">
</p>
</div>
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Pics of Rolo: http://my.opera.com/arbpen/albums/show.dml?id=281941
dorayme
<1d82b641-da9c-4e24...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
emekadavid <nnaemek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When does one make the choice between inserting an image as an html
> img element or as a css url reference.
You probably mean the css backgrounding as the alternative to img
element.
At the most general level, it helps to imagine CSS off, it supposedly
being for style rather than content and meaning. Thus, if a picture is
part of the content of the page, it not being really meaningful without
it (as in a photographer showing off his shots), then it must go in an
img element. If on the other hand, it is mere decoration, say a few nice
floral squiggles, then as bg is the correct way to do it because nothing
of content is lost if the css is lost.
So far so good in the clear cases. But there are more difficult
practical situations where the motives become more complex. I am worried
about going on because what is my guarantee that you are sitting up
listening carefully? <g>
--
dorayme