What the other people are saying is that images meant as content shouldn't be implemented through background-image. Perhaps the article makes it appear that th

What the other people are saying is that images meant as content shouldn't be implemented through background-image. Perhaps the article makes it appear that there is something wrong with background-image - there's not. It's just the masses of devs (and I'm guilty of this, too) using it in the place of an <img>. Background-image, in the same vane as background-color, doesn't need any accessibility.