W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

checkpoint 3.1 RE: rationalize presentation

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:07:03 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: <gdeering@acslink.net.au>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0201201457160.23976-100000@tux.w3.org>
I don't claim total enlightenment, but maybe the following thoughts based on
experience will do...

There are a couple of things we were trying to achieve with the checkpoint
(as I recall the history). One was to avoid relying on (here Kynn's point
about wording is clearly relevant) images of text, for reasons already
discussed. And yes, SVG does provide a way around this and so would be
considered "markup" not an image.

The other was finding images of mathmatical content, or chemical formulae,
instead of some kind of markup version rather than as well as.

My take on using bitmap images of text is that if the content of the text is
meant to be read (rather than the overall shpae being recognised, as in a
logo - w3c uses the same logo in all scripts, but uses arabic script for
arabic text) then don't use an image. Most particulrly this applies to
navigation bar text - in my opinion among the most important text on azn
average page.

On the other hand, for something like Maths or chemistry, providing an image
as one alternative, with other recognised formats - mathML or cheML and
LaTeX - can be a useful thing to do.

just my personal thoughts - 2 euro cents on a sunday evening...

chaals

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 9:23 PM +1100 1/19/02, Geoff Deering wrote:
  >This is basically my question too.  As I read Checkpoint 3.1; "When an
  >appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey
  >information" (Priority 2).
  >
  >I take this to mean "use markup rather than gifs, jpegs, etc when
  >representing anything in text form".  And this could be expanded to use SVG
  >instead of GIFs & JPGs (when the technology is mature and widespread
  >enough).
  >
  >That's how I interpret this checkpoint and priority 2 compliance.  Would
  >appreciate an enlightened view on this to correct me if this is not so.

  I think the checkpoint is poorly worded in that it is all about
  _not_ using something, instead of "providing alternatives". This is
  an example of a buggy checkpoint, which is why we're having so many
  problems with it.

  Access shouldn't be about stopping doing something, but instead
  supplementing what you're doing.  If you can work out some way to
  deliver text images and still make the content accessible to audiences
  who can't see those text audiences, then you should be encouraged to
  go for it.  You should not be "marked down" any more than you should
  be marked down for providing PDF _and_ HTML.

  --Kynn



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2002 15:07:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT