W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: A new iconography?

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:04:32 -0400
Message-ID: <AF196F44735ED411B93A00508BDFB1080E4317@WDCROBEXC09>
To: "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Anne Pemberton
> I fail to see any reason not to use word art if the words
> it contains are put in an alt tag. 

The ALT content is sufficient for folks who use screen readers.  It is
wholly unsatisfactory for many persons with low vision.  There has been much
exposition (in related threads) as to why non-scalable word art is a real
obstacle.  Kynn, IMHO, gave the most succinct explanation -- which one can
find archived at URL:

I still remain quite perplexed by Kynn's (and others) reluctance to
acknowledge that this barrier rises to the level of being a P2 issue.  From
the WCAG:
[Priority 2]  A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint.
Otherwise, one or more groups will find it difficult to access information
in the document.  Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant
barriers to accessing Web documents.

Why are we debating this?  It seems black and white to me, but the popular
response has been to suggest changing the guidelines rather than facing up
to and acknowledging the problem.  Are we really that afraid of the
implications?  The response I expected was more to the effect:  "Thanks for
pointing this out Len.  Those of us claiming AA better check our sites!"
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 11:05:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:10 UTC