Is it considered bad practice to use the ‘background image’ feature of HTML boxes as for most my site’s graphics opposed to inserting a graphic item?
I prefer the ‘clean and simple’ approach to design and if there’s nothing wrong with using the background image feature of HTML boxes, then I’ll continue to work that way.
I’m building my first site fully inline and really like the clean approach.
The only down-side to this approach is that when the page is printed, your images will disappear. Also, the file names of background images are not considered (either at all, or as much, not sure which) when it comes to SEO, and background images don’t have ALT attributes, which do contribute to SEO and provide basic “readability” for your images in cases where your site is being read out loud to a visually disabled person.
But those caveats really only apply if the images are part of the page content. If they only provide decoration, then you should definitely continue with your approach. This will have the benefit of not diluting your page content with non-semantic elements. The ratio of useful content to overall file size will improve, making your page appear more authoritative to robots.
Walter
On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Neil wrote:
Is it considered bad practice to use the ‘background image’ feature of HTML boxes as for most my site’s graphics opposed to inserting a graphic item?
I prefer the ‘clean and simple’ approach to design and if there’s nothing wrong with using the background image feature of HTML boxes, then I’ll continue to work that way.
I’m building my first site fully inline and really like the clean approach.
Many thanks (again) for the swift and useful reply. That’s interesting to note that they don’t print out - didn’t even think of this. I have a particularly pedantic client for which I can image this would be an issue for - wouldn’t want to get down the line of finishing it only to see this happen.
That said, as you mention, for decorative touches I can live with it, and it’s a lot cleaner to work with in Freeway.
I’ll see how I get on whilst constructing it. For years I’ve used Illustrator and Photoshop to apply and fine tune effects (such as drop shadows) to graphics prior to importing them into FW, but slowly starting to migrate to using FW’s options - more so now in FW6 with HTML5, which feels a more natural way to work.
Once again thanks for your valuable take on this, cheers Walt.
It depends if your images are just decoration, or part of your meaningful
content.
All modern browsers (I know of) have Developer features, though you may
have to investigate how to enable them. They include features like viewing
the page without images or viewing the page without styles - to give you a
sense of how your page content will appear in different scenarios (and to
different types of users). In your case, Styles Off will cause your
background images to fail – at which point you can evaluate how much their
loss affects your page’s ability to communicate its meaning. If you can
live without them, then I’d say they are fine as background images. If
their loss affects the meaning of your content (and I would say even if
it’s just a reinforcing role, like a picture of a rabbit when your content
speaks of rabbits) then I think you should consider elevating the image to
actual content.
Image content also has alt tags which search engines still pay attention
to. When correctly used, they can reinforce your text content by showing
search engines that you are not only writing about rabbits, but showing
your users images of them in support of your story. If I understand
googlenomics, then they will like your page content even more.
Best wishes,
–
Ernie Simpson
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Neil email@hidden wrote:
Is it considered bad practice to use the ‘background image’ feature of
HTML boxes as for most my site’s graphics opposed to inserting a graphic
item?
I prefer the ‘clean and simple’ approach to design and if there’s nothing
wrong with using the background image feature of HTML boxes, then I’ll
continue to work that way.
I’m building my first site fully inline and really like the clean approach.