Home/ Questions/Q 6672031
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-26T03:27:37+00:00

If I have the choice to insert images directly into the html or in

  • 0

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…

<a href="#"><img src="#" alt="" width="" height="" /></a>

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?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    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.

    • 0