Lachlan – while your version is functionally equivalent, and I like the use of the the strong element (similar to the examples I provide over at simplyaccessible.org) I think that the image in the markup is a more universal solution.
It will better deal with CSS off/not supported and images on/supported, and certainly be an aid to those that are more visual. Its use supports WCAG 1.0 Priority 3 Guideline 14.2 “Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page” Your version does this too – but with the image in the markup it is done so more universally.
Ultimately the point of the article, though, was to encourage people to think carefully about it rather than simply adding the image to a CSS background image.
Derek Featherstone
Lachlan – while your version is functionally equivalent, and I like the use of the the strong element (similar to the examples I provide over at simplyaccessible.org) I think that the image in the markup is a more universal solution.
It will better deal with CSS off/not supported and images on/supported, and certainly be an aid to those that are more visual. Its use supports WCAG 1.0 Priority 3 Guideline 14.2 “Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page” Your version does this too – but with the image in the markup it is done so more universally.
Ultimately the point of the article, though, was to encourage people to think carefully about it rather than simply adding the image to a CSS background image.