W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: Vector Graphics

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:06:51 +0200
Message-Id: <199807291906.VAA09094@www47.inria.fr>
To: Jamie Fox <jfox@fenix2.dol-esa.gov>
cc: "'Patrick Burke'" <burke@ucla.edu>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

> I would imagine that it would have zero impact.  Vector graphics are
> simply a different compression scenario / scheme.  The other option
> are rastered graphics that are basicly saved pixel by pixel.
> Bitmaps are raster based images.

Well, we can hope there is an impact, in the sense that it's a
symbolic representation of a graphics, so one could access the meaning 
by knowing the language.

example, if I write (making up syntax as I type)

<circle id=c1 x=9 y=2 r=5>
<line origin=c1 angle=0>
<rectangle ...>

then a voice agent could read aloud that there is a diagram made of
several groups, that the first group is a circle attached to a
rectangle with a line, etc.

a near-sighted user can scale this graphic up withou losing the
definition too.

so it's better that a bitmap.

but I also heard people saying that if the circle is there to
represent a pie-chart about market share values and such, it's going
to be really hard to extract that semantics from the markup, an order
of magniture harder than a complex table...

what needs to be provided in this case is the souce data about the
market-share figures, in XML for instance, and the vector graphics is
just one presentation of it (which doesn't mean it falls into style
language land, but that's another story)
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 1998 15:06:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:01 UTC