How do I remove the border around images?

[FluxForums]

Place
border=
within the "<img" tag area

 

[SpaceGirl]

Place
border=0
within the "<img" tag area.

NO!!! use STYLESHEETs.

 

[Cameron]

NO!!! use STYLESHEETs.

*Sigh* I do wish people would stop considering not using style sheets a
crime, I personally half use them, that is just for colour, in the
future I may use them for everything, but at the moment with all the
"this works in x but doesn't work in z" I would rather wait a bit, my
site is done with tables for positioning, and displays fine in moz
firebird, konqueror, IE and even Lynx, not that there is much on it at
the moment hehe.

~Cameron

 

[Kris]

NO!!! use STYLESHEETs.

[/QUOTE]

*Sigh* I do wish people would stop considering not using style sheets a
crime, I personally half use them, that is just for colour, in the
future I may use them for everything, but at the moment with all the
"this works in x but doesn't work in z" I would rather wait a bit,

Wouldn't you define your answer rather like "Use stylesheets whenever
you can and in exceptional cases, like [...], use the border attribute
on the IMG tag"?

This has quickly become a mix of wrong information, incomplete
argumentation and personal preference. Not that that will be very
helpful to anyone.

 

[SpaceGirl]

*Sigh* I do wish people would stop considering not using style sheets a
crime, I personally half use them, that is just for colour, in the
future I may use them for everything, but at the moment with all the
"this works in x but doesn't work in z" I would rather wait a bit,

Wouldn't you define your answer rather like "Use stylesheets whenever
you can and in exceptional cases, like [...], use the border attribute
on the IMG tag"?

This has quickly become a mix of wrong information, incomplete
argumentation and personal preference. Not that that will be very
helpful to anyone.
[/QUOTE]

adding
img { border:0px; }

inside your stylesheet is much more efficient than adding border=0 in EVERY
SINGLE image tag on your page. It means if later on you want to add a
border, or special formatting to your images, you only have to change ONE
LINE to effect EVERY image on the ENTIRE website. Why make work for yourself
and do it any other way?

 

[Cameron]

*Sigh* I do wish people would stop considering not using style sheets a
crime, I personally half use them, that is just for colour, in the
future I may use them for everything, but at the moment with all the
"this works in x but doesn't work in z" I would rather wait a bit,

Wouldn't you define your answer rather like "Use stylesheets whenever
you can and in exceptional cases, like [...], use the border attribute
on the IMG tag"?

This has quickly become a mix of wrong information, incomplete
argumentation and personal preference. Not that that will be very
helpful to anyone.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn't speaking about any CSS/Element/Attribute in particular, I was
more annoyed at the horror produced when someone mentions using tables
and in some cases reffering to said people as idiots.


~Cameron

 

[DU]

Place
border=0
within the "<img" tag area.

IMO, this is a wrong question. By default, every image has no border
around it. Only clickable links can have a border around it. Now, if you
remove border around every clickable links, how is the user going to
know, see and figure out easily and quickly which images are clickable?

You increase the usability of a webpage by letting such border exist
around image.

DU

 

[Cameron]

IMO, this is a wrong question. By default, every image has no border
around it. Only clickable links can have a border around it. Now, if you
remove border around every clickable links, how is the user going to
know, see and figure out easily and quickly which images are clickable?

You increase the usability of a webpage by letting such border exist
around image.

DU

This may be true however every webmaster/mistress I know gets rid of
this border, so people wouldn't know what it was even if it was there,
I'm a fan of text links anyway.

~Cameron

 

[DU]

This may be true however every webmaster/mistress I know gets rid of
this border, so people wouldn't know what it was even if it was there,
I'm a fan of text links anyway.

~Cameron

There are lots of ways to reduce the usability and accessibility of a
site. When people - and I just don't care who they are or how many they
are - intentionally and deliberately remove such borders, then they
remove user interactivity on their own site. Like you say, they create a
link and they remove the visual feedback by which the user can identify,
quickly and easily see, recognize where are the links: it's anti-usability.

DU

 

[Paul Furman]

[when webmasters] remove the visual feedback by which the user can identify,
quickly and easily see, recognize where are the links: it's anti-usability.

Understood but do you have an example of a site with link bordered
images that doesn't look just awful? Maybe there is a way to do it that
I'm not thinking of. It always just looks so tacky to have that ugly
blue frame around a picture. Maybe adding linked text below absolves the
responsibility to border the image?

 

[Karl Core]

There are lots of ways to reduce the usability and accessibility of a
site. When people - and I just don't care who they are or how many they
are - intentionally and deliberately remove such borders, then they
remove user interactivity on their own site. Like you say, they create a
link and they remove the visual feedback by which the user can identify,
quickly and easily see, recognize where are the links: it's

anti-usability.

I can definitely agree with the sentiment behind what you say, I've yet to
see a usability study that shows that *borderless* images are a usability
problem.
More important, IMO, is whether the user feels that the image seems
"clickable" and understands what will happen when they click it.
A well-located icon depicting a little house that says "Home" in a clearly
legible font is made no more or less "usable" as a link to the home page if
it does/ does not have a blue border around it.

 

[Chris]

Paul Furman wrote in message ...

It always just looks so tacky to have that ugly
blue frame around a picture.

It doesn't *have* to be a blue frame. You can make the link-colour any
colour you wish to enhance the image if you wish, as long as you make it
clear to your visitors that those images with ?? coloured frames are
clickable.

 

[Els]

[when webmasters] remove the visual feedback by which the user can
identify, quickly and easily see, recognize where are the links: it's
anti-usability.

Understood but do you have an example of a site with link bordered
images that doesn't look just awful? Maybe there is a way to do it that
I'm not thinking of. It always just looks so tacky to have that ugly
blue frame around a picture. Maybe adding linked text below absolves the
responsibility to border the image?

I resolved to showing almost no border around the images,
but have it change colour visibly when moused over.
From the stats I see that just about 99% of visitors
understands that the images are clickable. From the 1% (or
less) that doesn't click, I don't know if it is 'cause they
didn't realize they could, or if it's lack of interest.
Example:
http://www.mediatech.nl/~rachel/Rachel/livemetallicafieldsofrock.html
or any other page on the site.

 

[Nik Coughin]

There are lots of ways to reduce the usability and accessibility of a
site. When people - and I just don't care who they are or how many
they are - intentionally and deliberately remove such borders, then
they
remove user interactivity on their own site. Like you say, they
create a link and they remove the visual feedback by which the user
can identify, quickly and easily see, recognize where are the links:
it's anti-usability.

DU

I have links which exist on the same page in both icon and text form. The
icons look pretty. They don't look pretty with a border. The icons are
blatently navigation, this is apparent the second that the page opens from
both their graphical style and positioning. Even if people fail to notice
that, there is a navigation column containing the same links as text. The
cursor changes when you mouseover the images. The alt text for the images
is the same as the text links. You can't make blanket statements saying
that "this thing" or "that thing" is always bad.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Understood but do you have an example of a site with link bordered
images that doesn't look just awful?

http://www.huzzie.org/gallery/gracelands/

 

[Els]

http://www.huzzie.org/gallery/gracelands/

You may want to add a (black) border to the main div, it
will stop the left side slipping off the screen when you
narrow your window in Gecko browsers.

 

[Kris]

This has quickly become a mix of wrong information, incomplete
argumentation and personal preference. Not that that will be very
helpful to anyone.

[/QUOTE]

I wasn't speaking about any CSS/Element/Attribute in particular, I was
more annoyed at the horror produced when someone mentions using tables

You are the first to mention one in this thread.

and in some cases reffering to said people as idiots.

Another first-timer.

 

[Cameron]

I wasn't speaking about any CSS/Element/Attribute in particular, I was
more annoyed at the horror produced when someone mentions using tables

You are the first to mention one in this thread.

and in some cases reffering to said people as idiots.

Another first-timer.
[/QUOTE]

Granted the second wasn't in this thread but Space girl was horrified
because someone suggested using tables in THIS THREAD.

~Cameron

 

[DU]

anti-usability.

I can definitely agree with the sentiment behind what you say, I've yet to
see a usability study that shows that *borderless* images are a usability
problem.

I have no usability study at hand, just my own surfing experience. In
several pages where clickable images have been made borderless, I
couldn't figure out easily which images are clickable.

More important, IMO, is whether the user feels that the image seems
"clickable"

Sometimes, the content of an image is itself intuitive and
self-explanatory and clearly indicating that the image is clickable.

and understands what will happen when they click it.

Correct. Before clicking a link (or a clickable image) which opens up a
popup, the user should be informed that such link will open the
referenced resource in a popup: that's a WAI guideline/recommendation.
That's why coding the title attribute and/or using an icon is best.

A well-located icon depicting a little house that says "Home"

In such case, I would recommend to use a text link only as there are
many variations of "Home" icon due to browser themes.
Also, images are almost always inferior to text when you can choose
between the 2.
Coding <link rel="home" ...> or <link rel="start" ...> will be made
usable for browsers rendering Site Navigation toolbar and in such cases,
this is much more reliable, usable, consistent than a clickable "Home"
image or even a text link.

in a clearly

legible font is made no more or less "usable" as a link to the home page if
it does/ does not have a blue border around it.

A border (the default - in browsers - color for unvisited links is blue)
around clickable images immediately and visually indicates, reveals such
images: no mouseover needed, no examination of the page code needed, no
page info tab to examine.
Just imagine how difficult-to-use and pointless would be accesskey if
they were not underlined (or between parentheses or without any visual
indication).

DU

 

[DU]

[when webmasters] remove the visual feedback by which the user can
identify, quickly and easily see, recognize where are the links: it's
anti-usability.

Understood but do you have an example of a site with link bordered
images that doesn't look just awful?

The answer is almost. I'm working on upgrading entirely a site I
designed several years ago and this issue of border for clickable images
is on my to-do list.

Maybe there is a way to do it that

I'm not thinking of. It always just looks so tacky to have that ugly
blue frame around a picture. Maybe adding linked text below absolves the
responsibility to border the image?

Text below or above... it all depends on the page, image, etc. The only
and main issue (usability goal pursued) that I submitted was to indicate
visually (static indication) which images are clickable in a page and
then (best) to apply such visual indication in a consistent manner
across such site. This can tremendously help user interactivity and
usability of a site.

DU