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

Re: background-image in CSS

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:59:05 -0500
Message-ID: <008c01c1a052$340c0550$c2f20141@cp286066a>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Charles, answering both you and bob here, you hinted at an answer in
your message below when you mention that the screen reader is going to
be sharply and exclusively focused where intended to be in this case.
To raise the bar on this, make the content rich in text for the text
user and you define it as something that should have focus.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: background-image in CSS



Access Systems wrote:

> don't people with screen readers have a right to the "effect" you
think is
> usefull for some people but not others.   Why the difference?  Do you
> think that visually impaired folks cannot get an "effect" or that they
> don't deserve that "effect"??????


Having seen the page in question, the actual background image is a
pattern of black and gray horizontal stripes, one pixel wide. The effect
it creates is to cause the text area -- which has a white background --
to pop out, focusing the reader's eyes. No description of the image will
have a similar effect for non-visual users, and, in fact, it is probably
unneccessary because a screen reader focuses the user's attention
similarly already.

I don't think that Ineke believes that non-visual users should be
deprived of anything. But this brings up an interesting question: how
does one convey the equivalent meaning to a non-visual user?

Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 13:59:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT