RE: text as images...

I would argue that due to Netscape and its ability (or inability) to
display CSS as required, using text in an image would not violate 
When an appropriate markup language exists and is supported, use markup
rather than raster-based images to convey information.
simply because it is "not supported".

Gian

-----Original Message-----
From: wendy [mailto:wendy@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2002 7:43 AM
To: charles; Gian Sampson-Wild
Cc: w3c-wai-gl
Subject: Re: text as images...


Please note that the following appears in the errata for WCAG 1.0:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WAI-WEBCONTENT-ERRATA

<quote>
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.
</quote>

Does this help any?

--wendy


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
archives
>for the end of 2000 - there are a numbner of threads there that are
relevant.
>
>If a navigation bar consists of *images of text* then I think it breaks
that
>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
specification,
>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.
>
>chaals
>
>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
/--