I don't object to adding the note, but it isn't clear to me that C30 is about customizing the image of text. Instead it is about conformance through alternate versions - in which case it is sufficient for both success criteria. I think it raises the question once again of whether alternate versions should be listed as sufficient techniques for success criteria. Sofia On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>wrote: > I had an action item [1] to discourage the use of image replacement, and > encourage the use of real text. > > > > Add to C30, at the end of the description: > > Please note that it is a better practice to use real text, which the user > agent can resize and re-color, rather than images of text. While this > technique does meet the success criterion, it will be less usable for some > users than providing real text. > > > > While looking at this, I also noticed that C30 is about allowing users to > customize the image of text. Since customization is an exception in 1.4.5 > that is not in 1.4.9, I think that C30 should not be sufficient for 1.4.9. > What do others think of this? > > > > Thanks, > > Cynthia > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Group/track/actions/19 >Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 02:15:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 02:15:20 GMT