W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text, Round Two *ding*

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:48:03 +0200
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001101c0293a$734c5c00$5fa1003e@ndcil.com>
I may have missed the point, but saying no text on images would disqualify
our WAI accessibility (priority level) logo.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of William Loughborough
  Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 12:44 AM
  To: Kynn Bartlett
  Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; WAI ER group; WAI UA group
  Subject: Re: Textual Images vs. Styled Text, Round Two *ding*

  At 02:50 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

    I think you may have missed _my_ point...
  Nope. Everyone's missing the "point" - there is no such entity as "image
text". When an image is made of <em><strong>anything </em></strong>it
becomes "image" and must endure the same requirements whether it is an image
of text or an image showing apples vs. oranges. It requires a textual

  KB::  "I don't think anyone is claiming it's not, so I'm not sure you need
to make this point so forcefully. :)"

  WL: The reason I'm sure that I do need to make the point "forcefully" is
that somehow it has been allowed to slip by that images of text are a
special case of images. They are not. IMO this also goes for PDF. The clear
purpose of the guidelines applicable to this entire genre is that if there's
any semantics in there it must be teased out. If not, then...

Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 05:58:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:33 UTC