WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Content in background images


From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: May 24, 2011 1:09PM

It's my understanding and my past experience that if you use high contrast mode on Windows, background images will be disabled in some of the browsers. In fact, I spent a whole weekend once trying to figure out how in the world sighted people knew a table was sortable before realizing that the visual indicators were CCSS background images. Until then, i was starting to think all the sighted folk had some sort of user interface mental telepathy--or just went around clicking on things to see what happens.

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Dean Hamack
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:15 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Content in background images

I can only see one reason why users would disable images, and that's if they
are on a mobile device with a slow connection. And I think that's a really
rare edge case. As long as the link contains all of the text that's in the
images so that screenreader users can get the same information, I think it
is perfectly fine.

On 5/24/11 10:06 AM, "Angela Colter" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Hi Dean,
> Indeed, the CSS for the link I mentioned specifies both text-indent:
> -10000px and overflow: hidden
> And that's the reason for my question.
> One of the things that accessibility review checklists always tell you to do
> is turn off images to see if the same information is conveyed. (See
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary.html and
> http://webaim.org/resources/opera/#images ) In this case, the page is marked
> up so that screenreader users have access to the link text, but people who
> merely turn off images in a GUI browser will not.
> It makes sense that marking up the page this way is useful for allowing
> flexibility in how the page is presented in a variety of devices, but is
> that happening at the cost of users who are simply turning images off?
> And is the poor experience of these users--and I'll grant you that I have no
> idea if such users even exist--a valid argument against using this
> content-in-background-images method?
> Angela