Posted by Joel Shepherd on 05/25/05 06:09

In article <1116956051.220414.79260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Travis Newbury" <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Bernhard Plugge wrote:
> > > http://www.sencesa.com/
> > very nice, as long as the images are displayed on the screen. if not
> > (there are many reasons not to display images), your site becomes
> unaccessible.
>
> Not inaccessible, but trickier....
>
> But you know, if I go to a site with my images off (especially a site
> whos main reason for existance is images), and can't get around. I
> would think to myself, "Hey, I bet this guy is doing what a lot of
> sites do, and he has his navigation dependent on me seeing an image. I
> think I might turn them on and see the site..."

Of course, if "this guy"'s image server is down -- not, of course, that
that _ever_ happens in the real world -- enabling images on your end
isn't going to do squat. Instead, said guy goes on losing sales because
he/she/it didn't have the foresight to provide a bit of alt text to
ensure the site was readily usable _regardless_ of why images weren't
available to the end user.

> But that's just me.

Nope. Sometimes it has nothing to do with you at all. Sucks then,
doesn't it?

--
Joel.

[Back to original message]