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

RE: text as images...

From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:26:20 +1100
To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, <gian@stanleymilford.com.au>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NBBBJPNFCLNLAADCLFJBEELLDEAA.gdeering@acslink.net.au>
I think this is much better, much clearer, as we need to expand these
checkpoints in some for of documentation to show; clarification, reason,
rationalisation and example.

I also feel we need to show not to be discouraging the use of appropriate
graphics and multimedia, but to be encouraging using SVG and other
appropriate tools.

----- Wendy A Chisholm
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2002 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: text as images...

Please note that the following appears in the errata for WCAG 1.0:

8. Text in images - clarification of checkpoint 3.1.
Added: 3 January 2001
Type: Clarification
Refers to: Checkpoint 3.1 in 5 May 1999 version.
Description (and correction). Checkpoint 3.1 should be reworded to read,
"When an appropriate markup language exists and is supported, use markup
rather than raster-based images to convey information. [Priority 2]
For example, when supported, use SVG to create graphics, MathML to mark up
mathematical equations, and CSS for text-oriented special effects. Avoid
where possible using raster-based images to represent text -- use text and
style sheets. Raster-based formats such as .gif and .jpeg paint the text as
a series of pixels. When magnified the text becomes distorted. The ability
to magnify text is critical for user with low vision.
You may use text in images when:
the text does not convey its literal meaning but has a more graphical
function, such as a logo and
the effect can not be achieved with CSS and
you have provided a text equivalent for the image.
Refer also to Guideline 1, Guideline 6 and Guideline 11.

Does this help any?


At 08:54 PM 1/23/02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>see checkpoint 3.2: When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup
>rather than images to convey information.
>and the discussion recently, and the discussion on the topic in the
>for the end of 2000 - there are a numbner of threads there that are
>If a navigation bar consists of *images of text* then I think it breaks
>checkpoint. If it ha  images with it, then I think it doesn't, and in
>addition it helps fulfill other checkpoints I think are important.
>As Kynn has pointed out, a page that has a text version (in the rendered
>content of the page) of text that is also provided in images doesn't break
>the spirit of the checkpoint, but might break the letter...
>Debating the points is important if we are going to produce a
>and not just be a question-and-answer help list (there is a place for that,
>but I don't believe that is what WCAG is chartered to do).
>just a thought.
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 gian@stanleymilford.com.au wrote:
>     (sent too soon!)
>      Hi,
>     However, nothing I have read has convinced me that having a
>     navigational bar that consists of images breaks level AA or level
>     AAA.

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 17:26:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:40 UTC