[thelist] In Defense of Fahrner Image Replacement

[Egor Kloos]

> i've seen the word "solution" used a number of times in this thread, 
> but i
> have yet to see a clear statement of the problem that the FIRT is a 
> solution
> to
Designers like to have a choice of typefaces and as far as I'm aware of 
is that this 'solution' is only to replace HTML text with the same text 
in an image with a different typeface. Yes, I know that sounds 
pointless. But there you have it. Using both would certainly be 
pointless.

> i guess what i'm saying is that the "solution" breaks under a number of
> situations (images turned off and style sheets turned on, etc.) and
> therefore it causes more problems than the "problem" it purportedly 
> "solves"
Agreed, that is one reason why I'd never use it. I might use it if I 
had a image at the top of my page that could be missed and is not part 
of the content but merely there for aesthetics. I could then use text 
so that google could read it. But this would be a rarity at best and 
may not even be worth my or anybodies effort.
And again my advise is to use images for images and text for text. If 
images are disabled alt text comes to the rescue, and you can even 
style the alt text as well (works in mozzilla). This makes the FIR 
solution... eh method even less important for designers.

egor

http://www.dutchcelt.nl/