However once picture is supported, that is a better option than the alternative, which is that those who have JavaScript disabled in browser that supports picture would see two copies of the same image. Metadata content, flow content, phrasing content. Hello, I would also like to add to this conversation, as we also had similar request from our SEO specialists to remove this noscript tag, as it makes search bots think that the image is duplicated (it's alt attribute is saved in cache, that's what triggered SEO specialists).
Where are the uninstall NoScript instructions In firefox click Tools > Add-ons > Extensions then click on NoScript and you will see the option to uninstall. The HTML element defines a section of HTML to be inserted if a script type on the page is unsupported or if scripting is currently turned off in the browser. But there are too many options for my old mind and I am thinking about uninstall, havn't decided yet. Initially, the 0.2% of site traffic that actually has JavaScript disabled will see alt text rather than an image. I rather like the end result of NoScript. Modify tests to no longer check for the noscript element or fallback image. If the user agents among your audience are unpredictable, however, replacing the noscript element with another mechanism becomes significant. Remove supporting functions that generate the fallback image in the noscript element If your writing is targeted at modern, standards-based, compliant, and fully capable JavaScript user agents, employing the noscript element is no problem. Modify markup to remove noscript element Remove noscript from our markup for the picture element. That means that 0.2% of traffic will see alt text instead of an image, but that's probably better than getting two copies of an images downloaded and displayed, which slows down page rendering time and screws up the layout. Remaining tasks - Modify markup to remove noscript element - Remove supporting functions that generate the fallback image in the noscript element - Modify tests to no longer check for the noscript element or fallback image. A better solution is to drop noscript from our markup. Remove noscript from our markup for the picture element. As browsers start to implement picture support, though, noscript will become a real problem for those people, as it will cause them to see two copies of an image. So right now noscript provides a benefit to a small number of people: the 0.2% of traffic where JS is disabled in the browser. If JS is enabled but not working, noscript doesn't do anything: that's a much larger percentage, about 0.9% of traffic. ) shows that noscript only works when JS is disabled in the browser, which is about 0.2% of traffic. The problem is that for those who are using a browser that supports picture, but have JavaScript disabled, they will get two copies of the image downloaded and displayed, which is really bad. Once that change is made, we will have another issue, which is detailed in an issue related to the refactoring of the polyfill for the picture element, Picturefill: None, both the starting and ending tag are mandatory.We are working to add an empty img element inside the picture element in issue #2220865: Add empty img element inside picture element to match up with the current version of the picture specification, and to ensure that the img displayed by the picture element (once supported by browsers) has a proper alt attribute. Otherwise: flow content or phrasing content. Transparent content, but no element must be among its
When scripting is disabled and when it is a descendant of theĭisabled and when it isn't a descendant of the The HTML element defines a section of HTML to be inserted if a script type on the page is unsupported or if scripting is currently turned off in the browser.
Allowing cross-origin use of images and canvas. HTML table advanced features and accessibility.From object to iframe - other embedding technologies.Assessment: Structuring a page of content.
0 kommentar(er)
