This is an article discussion thread for discussing the Earners Forum article, "Text Or Image Based Navigation, What’s Best?"

Well, I for one am very much into the graphic design of a site. I get a little bored seeing plain text for navigation all the time simply because there are only a handful of safe fonts to use.

I think that if the site is relying on advertising and hits per day you really have to keep this in account and maybe use strictly text. However, for a brochure style site that serves more as a reference for it's clients or for personal sites, I'll use images for navigation almost every time. It just looks better.

I use the text-indent:-9999 method for my anchor text behind images for navigation(I know there are more ways to do this). Then there is still anchor text "there" but not seen by the user. Am I missing something with that? Doesn't the robot "see" the anchor text even though the user doesn't in this case?

I do always reiterate an extended menu in plain text in the footer. This serves well as a site map for users. I'd personally rather see a nice big footer full of site links than these drop down menus which are alway broken on so many sites! (Even paypal's drop down in the developer section is broken in google chrome!)

I would never use flash for a main menu of a site that people wanted ratings, that's obvious.

That's my thought anyway.

Actually Racer X, I remember a method of loading fonts from the web server using flash I believe.

I don't remember the name of it though... D=

I remember a method of loading fonts from the web server using flash I believe.

It's called SIFR. It's great, it works like a charm, it takes a little work to get it right, but it's NOT recommended for large amounts of text. It's best used for headings and other small sections of text.

SIFR and other image replacement schemes do work, but I'm not a big fan of having your navigation be only image-based, for a number of reasons, accessibility being at the top of the list. If someone is browsing with images turned off, and you're NOT using an image replacement method, how do your visitors navigate your site ?? Simple - they can't.

IF you're going to use images (and image maps are even worse!!), always, always, have a 2nd text-only navigation on your site.

I like using text with css for site navigation's so I'm still able to make them look nice with tabs or a nice background.

I like using text with css for site navigation's so I'm still able to make them look nice with tabs or a nice background.

Same here. In fact any time I can get away with using code instead of an image I will. One of my pet peeves is seeing images for large blocks of solid color.

@LNR - How long do you think it will be till we're using @font-face. That little bit of code is going to do a lot to improve typography online.

Using text with css gives you many advantages in any site navigation.

in terms of navigation I would most likely go with a dynamic CSS menu bar compiled of rollover effects using CSS.

If I had to choose I would likely go with image based.
Purposes:

1. you can still use text underneath that by using attributes of alt="", title="".
2. the average user can definitely handle the bandwidth for the images, if not you can use a image cruncher.
3. It is often more visually appealing.
4. You can use things like jQuery to make interesting fade effects.

a text based menu can be put together very nicely using CSS and HTML.
using ul, li, a, and css. You can style it with images or without them as background images, and also, if you're smart you can provide a stylesheet switcher at the top of your page for people with lower bandwidth to use the website without images.

Now adays in terms of mobile it is very likely that people can see your image based nav, good example is the blackberry and its mac counterpart the iPhone or iPod Touch. Then again, you would likely use a separate stylesheet for mobile users, and of course you would insert info for your alt tags so if the user came to your website and could only render text, the alt would take its place as a text link.

I wouldn't go with flash:
1. I don't know it, and don't really want to.
2. Many users still have flash problems and using it or not.
3. Almost every designing book advises you on stranding your user by using a flash menu and what happens if they can't see it.
4. you can accomplish the same effects using java, and or CSS with things like
li.class:hover, .class a:hover { stuff }
or using onhover="", onMouseOver="", ect.

most definitely I would stick with image based nav though :]
unless its accordians or some expander thingy.

I would add that you should take into consideration who your visitors are and what type of site it is.

If the sites are for artists, interior designers, video production, etc. I think a visitor who comes to these sites will most likely want images turned on!

If you were making a site aimed at senior citizens I don't think they would care what "style" the menu font was so you may as well not use image-based navigation and reduce your chances of a problem.

Originally Posted by racer x

I would add that you should take into consideration who your visitors are and what type of site it is.

If the sites are for artists, interior designers, video production, etc. I think a visitor who comes to these sites will most likely want images turned on!

If you were making a site aimed at senior citizens I don't think they would care what "style" the menu font was so you may as well not use image-based navigation and reduce your chances of a problem.

most definitely agree with you on that one.

another plus when you use text based navigation its easier for it to crawl by google because its a plain and simple text.