This question's answers are a community effort. Edit existing answers to improve this post. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
In what situations is it more appropriate to use an HTML IMG tag to display an image, as opposed to a CSS background-image, and vice-versa?
Factors may include accessibility, browser support, dynamic content, or any kind of technical limits or usability principles.
Proper uses of IMG
Use IMG if you intend to have
people print your page and you want the image to be included by default.
—JayTee
Use IMG (with alt text) when the image has an important semantic meaning, such as a warning icon. This ensures that the meaning of the image can be communicated in all user-agents, including screen readers.
Pragmatic uses of IMG
Use IMG plus alt attribute if the image
is part of the content such as a logo or diagram or person (real person, not stock photo people).
—sanchothefat
Use IMG if you rely on browser scaling to render an image in proportion to text size.
Use IMG
for multiple overlay images in IE6.
Use IMG with a z-index in order
to stretch a background image to fill its entire window.Note, this is no longer true with CSS3 background-size; see #6 below.
Using img instead of background-image can dramatically improve performance of animations over a background.
When to use CSS background-image
Use CSS background images if the
image is not part of the content.
—sanchothefat
Use CSS background images when
doing image-replacement of text eg. paragraphs/headers.
—sanchothefat
Use background-image if you intend to have
people print your page and you do not want the image to be included by default.
—JayTee
Use background-image if you need to improve download times, as
with CSS sprites.
Use background-image if you need for only a portion of the image to be visible, as with CSS sprites.
Use background-image with background-size:cover in order to stretch a background image to fill its entire window.
It's a black and white decision to me. If the image is part of the content such as a logo or diagram or person (real person, not stock photo people) then use the <img /> tag plus alt attribute. For everything else there's CSS background images.
The other time to use CSS background images is when doing image-replacement of text eg. paragraphs/headers.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this yet: CSS transitions.
You can natively transition a div's background image:
#some_div {
background-image:url(image_1.jpg);
-webkit-transition:background-image 0.5s;
/* Other vendor-prefixed transition properties */
transition:background-image 0.5s;
}
#some_div:hover {
background-image:url(image_2.jpg);
}
This saves any kind of JavaScript or jQuery animation to fade an <img/>'s src.
More information about transitions on MDN.
Above answers considers only Design aspect . I am listing it in SEO aspects.
When to use <img />
When Your Image need to be indexed by search engine
If it has relation to content, including cards (click areas), but not related to design. Design is probably the most difficult thing to parse here because so it's all design right. I would say perhaps functional design (Cards, thumbnails, profile images, things you can click) vs Aesthetic design which is mostly used for sites appeal.
List item
If your image is not too small ( not iconic images ).
Images where you can add alt and title attribute.
Images from a webpage which you want to print using print media css
When to use CSS background-image
Images Purely Used to Design.
No Relation With Content.
Small Images which we can play with CSS3.
Repeating Images ( In blog author icon , date icon will be repeated for each article etc.,).
As i will use them based on these reasons. These are Good practices of Search Engine Optimization of Images.
Browsers aren't always set to print background images by default; if you intend to have people print your page :)
If you have your CSS in an external file, then it's often convenient to display an image that's used frequently across the site (such as a header image) as a background image, because then you have the flexibility to change the image later.
For example, say you have the following HTML:
<div id="headerImage"></div>
...and CSS:
#headerImage {
width: 200px;
height: 100px;
background: url(Images/headerImage.png) no-repeat;
}
A few days later, you change the location of the image. All you have to do is update the CSS:
#headerImage {
width: 200px;
height: 100px;
background: url(../resources/images/headerImage.png) no-repeat;
}
Otherwise, you'd have to update the src attribute of the appropriate <img> tag in every HTML file (assuming you're not using a server-side scripting language or CMS to automate the process).
Also background images are useful if you don't want the user to be able to save the image (although I haven't ever needed to do this).
About the same as sanchothefat's answer, but from a different aspect. I always ask myself: if I would completely remove the stylesheets from the website, do the remaining elements only belong to the content? If so, I did my job well.
Some answers overcomplicate the scenario here. This is a dead simple situation.
Just answer to this question every time you'd like to place an image:
Is this part of the content or part of the design?
If you can't answer this, you probably don't know what you're doing or what you want to do!
Also, DO NOT consider beside the two technique, just because you'd wish to be "printer friendly" or not. Also DO NOT hide content from a SEO point of view with CSS. If you find yourself managing your content in CSS files, you shot yourself in the leg. This is just a trivial decision of what is content or not. Every other aspect should be ignored.
I would add another two arguments:
An img tag is good if you need to resize the image. E.g. if the original image is 100px by 100 px, and you want it to be 80px by 80px, you can set the CSS width and height of the img tag. I don't know of any good way to do this using background-image. EDIT: This can now also be done with a background-image, using the background-size CSS3 attribute.
Using background-image is good when you need to dynamically switch between sprites. E.g. if you have a button image, and you want a separate image displayed when the cursor is hovering over the element, you can use a background image containing both the normal and hover sprites, and dynamically change the background-position.
One more benefit from using the <IMG> tag is related to SEO - i.e. you can provide additional information about the image in the ALT attribute of the image tag, while there's no way to provide such information when specifying the image through CSS and in that case only the image file name may be indexed by search engines. The ALT attribute definitely gives the <IMG> tag SEO advantage over the CSS approach. That's why according to me it is better to specify the images you want to rank well in the image search results (e.g. Google Image Search) using the <IMG> tag.
Foreground = img.
Background = CSS background.
Use background images only when necessary e.g. containers with image that tiles.
One of the major PROS by using IMAGES is that it is better for SEO.
Using a background image, you need to absolutely specify the dimensions. This can be a significant problem if you don't actually know them in advance or cannot determine them.
A big problem with <img /> is overlays. What if I want an CSS inner shadow on my image (box-shadow:inset 0 0 5px rgb(0,0,0,.5))? In this case, since <img /> can't have child elements, you need to use positioning and add empty elements which equates to useless markup.
In conclusion, it's quite situational.
A couple of other scenarios where background-image should be used:
When you want the image to change when the mouse is hovered upon it.
When you want to add rounded corners to the image. If you use img, the image leaks out of the rounded corners.
Use CSS background-image in a case of multiple skins or versions of design. Javascript can be used to dynamically change a class of an element, which will force it to render a different image. With an IMG tag, it may be more tricky.
Here's a technical consideration: will the image be generated dynamically? It tends to be a lot easier to generate the <img> tag in HTML than to try to dynamically edit a CSS property.
What about the size of the image? If I use the img tag, the browser scales the image. If I use css background, the browser just cuts a chunk from the larger image.
img is an html tag for a reason, therefore it should be used. For referencing or to illustrate things, people e.g: in articles.
Also if the image has a meaning or has to be clickable an img is better than a css background. For all other situation, I think, a css background can be used.
Although, it is a subject that needs to be discussed over and over.
Web Student from Paris, France
In regards to animating images using CSS TranslateX/Y (The proper way to animate html) - If you do a Chrome Timeline recording of CSS background-images being animated vs IMG tags being animated you will see the paint times are drastically shorter for the CSS background-images.
There's another reason! If you have a responsive design and want to split usage of low, medium, and high-res images for devices through media queries, you should use backgrounds as well.
Also, i have a gallery section which has inconsistent picture sizes so even though those images are obviously considered content, I use background images and center them in divs with a set size. This is similar to what facebook does in their albums..
Just a small one to add, you should use the img tag if you want users to be able to 'right click' and 'save-image'/'save-picture', so if you intend to provide the image as a resource for others.
Using background image will (as far as I'm aware on most browsers) disable the option to save the image directly.
A small input,
I have had problems with responsive images slowing down the rendering on iphone for up to a minute, even with small images:
<!-- Was super slow -->
<div class="stuff">
<img src=".." width="100%" />
</div>
But when switching to using background images the problem went away, this is only viable if targeting newer browsers.
HTML is for content and CSS is for design. Is the image necessary and does it need to be picked up by screen readers? If the answer is yes, then put the image in the HTML. If it is purely for styling, then you can use the background-image property in CSS to inject the image. Just as a lot of people here have already mentioned, you can then use a pseudo element on the image if you like.
IMG load first because the src is in the html file itself whereas in the case of background-image the source is mentioned in stylesheet so the image loads after the stylesheet loaded, delaying the loading of the webpage.
Another background-image PRO: Background-images for <ul>/<ol> lists.
Use background images if they are part of the overall-design and are repeated on multiple pages. Preferably in background sprite form for optimization.
Use tags for all images that are not part of the overall design, and are most likely placed once, like specific images for articles, people, and important images that deserve to be added to google images.
** The only repeated image that I enclose in a <img> tag is the site/company logo. Because people tend to click it to go to the homepage, thus you wrap it with an <a> tag.
Also note that most search engine spiders don't index CSS background images therefore the background images will be ignored and you won't be able to get any traffic from search engines (no SEO benefit in short).
Where as all images defined with tags are indexed (unless manually excluded) and can bring in traffic from search engines if their title/alt attributes and filenames are optimized properly (w.r.t some keyword).
You can use IMG tags if you want the images to be fluid and scale to different screen sizes. For me these images are mostly part of the content. For most elements that are not part of the content, I use CSS sprites to keep the download size minimal unless I really want to animate icons etc.
I use image instead of background-image when i want to make them 100% stretchable which supported in most browsers.
If you want to add an image only for the special content on the page or for only one page the you should use IMG tag and if you want to put image on more than one pages then you should use CSS Background Image.
Related
In this article, an interesting technique to embed icons is presented:
<img src="blank.gif" class="chromium">
.chromium {
background:url(//ssl.google.com/imagepath.png) no-repeat;
width:250px;
height:250px;
}
The above 'Google' technique I like to explain to others as a transparent window image with a background image, essentially you're looking through a transparent image to see a background image.
Essentially, a transparent .gif is embedded as inline image. Using a class on the image tag, a background image & dimensions are applied
Now my question is: Why would anyone do something like that?
To my understanding, this implies the semantic meaning of an inline image, but still enables the use of sprites to display icons.
So maybe it could be useful to mark up something like this, where icons are used that are still related to the content, often in more abstract ways:
Still I really don't get it – is there any semantic advantage over using background images for icons without the transparent .gif?
Note that the image tag is missing the alt attribute, but I didn't want to change the quoted code snippet.
No, there is no semantic advantage, that I can see.
The img doesn't have an id to make it unique, nor an alt to describe the content. And the content doesn't convey any meaning whatsoever.
If he had included an alt or an id, then maybe there was something to say for this technique. But even then, it would still have the disadvantage of wasting bandwidth, having to load two image files instead of one.
This question already has answers here:
When to use IMG vs. CSS background-image?
(31 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
What's the best practice and established way to portray an image? I am working from the assumption that it shouldn't be done in HTML anymore so I am not using the img tag in my markup. Instead, I am linking the image in my CSS via background: url('dir'). If I am already going wrong with this assumption, let me know.
If linking an image in CSS is the correct (or at least a good, well established) way to go, then the next question is what HTML tag to use in the document? Technically, images can be applied to just about any element in HTML, so which one's the right one to use?
Case in point: Right now I am working on a row of icons where each icon has some text underneath it. At the moment, I have it set up as an unordered, horizontal list and I am applying the image and text in my CSS to each individual list item tag. However, there are several other ways I could do this. I could have a row of divs or spans, for example. Or I could use the img tag without defining the src property in the HTML and instead setting it in the CSS (at least I think this is possible). Or several other ways I can think.
What is the best practice in cases like this?
Images should be displayed with the <img> tag if the image is contextual information on the page. For example, if you have a web page showing custom swimming pools you build, your image of the swimming pools (under normal circumstances) should be set on the page using the <img> tag with an appropriate alt attribute.
// Shows a picture of a pool, provides contextual fallback text
<img src="pool.png" alt="The 'Custome' style pool." />
CSS background images are used more for stylist or decorations on the page. The background image of your webpage is not contextual, so it is set with a background image, for example. However, CSS background images are used for things such as sprites or JavaScript sliders. In these cases, special measures are taken to make sure they are still specified as contextual content (such as setting the title attribute).
// Alert icon is just a design element and does not
// provide context to the page
<div class="alert-icon"></div>
.alert-icon{background:url('alert.png');width:42px;height:42px}
It is also important to note that, by default, <img> will be printed and background-image will not. Chrome, as well as other browsers, now have an option to turn on background printing, but if you want to be 100% certain an image prints, <img> is the way to go.
TL;DR: For the majority of cases, use <img> for contextual images with proper alt attributes. Use CSS background images for decorations or sprites that do not convey context to the site.
Using CSS to display images using the background property is best if you want to display a sprite whose image can be manipulated via class or id. Other than that, using the <img> tag is still in practice.
I want to build a 10 x 10 thumbs of pictures in html page. (aspx)
there is a lot of options how to do it.
my question is : which html tag( which will contain the picture - is being rendered the most fastest !!
p.s.:
a) the picture is not pressable :
b) I dont have the ability to create sprite image.
options :
1) div with background image
2) img tag
3) maybe other option ?
Since this is a tabular format, you should use a table.
To avoid reflows use the width and height attributes for the rows and columns to ensure the browser renders the container table correctly to begin with. This also means setting width and height on the img elements.
So, use a table with img elements in each cell.
Opinion:
From my experience background images tend to load faster, altough images with height and width specifed can load faster, but I don't think you have that option. I also know you don't have the option for sprites, which are actually good because the image is loaded once.
It depends a lot on how big the files are, but I'd go with img tags for simplicity and flexibility.
The best performace all around would be to use a sprite, i.e. combine all the images in one (there are online tools to do that), then use css to show only the section that you need.
Loading images in the background renders faster than using an image element, but the difference would hardly be noticeable in this case. Also semantically it sounds like image elements would make more sense - if you turn off images then the page wouldn't make sense, they are not just decorative elements.
If I have the choice to insert images directly into the html or in the css, say for example a link wrapped in an image I could do either...
<img src="#" alt="" width="" height="" />
Or I could do...
<a id="img" href="#"></a>
#img {background: url('#') no-repeat; height: #; width: #;}
Which is better and why? Both work as wanted but is there any difference to load times etc, or any considered better practice?
Using images in HTML is better when the image has any contextual meaning... if it is a decorative picture without any contextual meaning, then use CSS. CSS is for presentation, HTML is for content.
The best hint for you to determine whether to use HTML or CSS for a picture is:
If I remove the picture, will the web-page content still make sense?
An image in HTML is meant to provide a visual meaning in context, with a meaningful text fall-back. Using an A element without any content should be avoided since its content will have a relationship with the link, for browsers and web-crawlers (such a Google bot).
Use CSS images only for decorative purposes. Otherwise it can damage your search engine rankings. Always provide an alt attribute for images, determine what will it be imagining that an eventual visitor cannot see any images.
If the image has context, such as a logo, or a photo, I would suggest loading it as an <img> Make sure you are providing alt text for accessibility and SEO reasons as well.
If an image has no context in the scope of the page, then I think the correct place for it, is defined the in the CSS which controls the design.
The whole idea is to separate your presentation from your content as much as you can. An Image can be content, and if so, should be in it.
Generally, I try to put as many images in CSS as possible but Doozer and Mario have good points. If the image is important to the context, it can go in the HTML. I will also use <img> tags when text needs to float around and image.
One thing that CSS can do that <img> can't are CSS image sprites. This is the only real performance benefit that you'll get from one or the other. Performance-hungry websites like youtube.com will combine many images into one large composite image in order to cut down on the HTTP traffic (and therefore the page load times). For example, this is a sprite taken from youtube.com.
Follow principles of semantic HTML. If the image is content, ie a thumbnail, photo, or button, use an <img> element. If it is more a part of the page design, a background image may be more appropriate.
A more specific example: If you are using your image as an icon next to a text link, use a background-image:
<span class="printIcon" onclick="window.print()">Print</a>
.printIcon { background: url(...) no-repeat; padding-left: 20px }
If your image is the button itself, with no text aspect, use an <img> element with an appropriate alt attribute that would work to substitue for the image if it is unavailable.
<img src="printButton.png" alt="Print" onclick="window.print()" />
I am designing my first website.
I have designed a button image in gimp and saved it as a jpg.
I want to use this button for my navigation buttons on the site. Should I make a separate image(jpeg) for each button or is it possible to just use one image and then overlay text on top of the images on the page using HTML? What's the best practice here?
Usually in this case you use just CSS by setting background property of elements that should be your navigation buttons.
For example you could have a ul:
<ul>
<li>Button1</li>
<li>Button2</li>
<li>Button3</li>
</ul>
and then just style it in you css by using background-image or similar styles, take a look here for some examples..
You're asking a question more about design than about coding. If you can implement your desired design by developing a single button background and then overlaying text in a standard font, do it! More broadly: don't put text in an image if you're just using a standard font.
On the other hand, if you want a fancy swirly font that can only be depicted in an image, you'll need to create a specialized image for each button with that button's text.
In that case, be sure to insert the image purely with CSS. Never, ever embed an <img /> tag with a textual button on a page.
Definitely reuse the images and overlay text. For ideas on how to do this, look at this tutorial:
Image button overlay text tutorial
Also, you mentioned using jpg. Consider using PNG instead for the button images, unless they are "real world" images. For simple gradients and solid colors, PNG is the way to go.
I havent seen the image but I generally try to Use CSS for as much of the graphical design as possible. Button generally tend to be very simple in design. However if you must use an image you can assign a background to a tag and then use text in the tag. Example would be to assign a background to a
<button class="myButtonClass">MyButtonText</button>
<style>
.myButtonClass {
//enter your button style here.
}
</style>
Depends on how you've designed you site, as always theres loads of ways to do everything.
If your buttons are just static i would recommend using images, theres no harm doing it like this.
<span>Your button</span>
then you can use the css to set the image background.
.home{display:block; height:20px; width:40px; background:url(image.gif);}
and your also gonna need to hide the text in the span.
.home span{display:none;}
Theres no harm in using simple text either, most of the time its personal preference.
Just leave ou the .home span{display:none;} and replace it with something to centre the text in the button.
As mentioned in another answer its also good practice to wrap your images in list items. Might sound wierd at first. But in practice its the best way.
you can put the image as backgroud...