W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>

From: P.H.Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Sep 2003 10:26:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3A1D23A330416E4FADC5B6C08CC252B97876BF@misnts6.mis.salford.ac.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

If I understand the issue correctly, the advantage of using
graphics in this context would be that you could have a visual
representation of the language name using the language's
respective font...otherwise people would need to have all
possible language packs installed to view it correctly.

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jon@spin.ie [mailto:jon@spin.ie]
> Sent: 29 September 2003 11:12
> To: alicia.chin@families.qld.gov.au; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>
> 
> 
> 
> > Instead of using flags and thus raising questions on which 
> flag to use, how
> > about having images of the language written in their own 
> script such as
> > French as &quot;Francais&quot; (with alt tags on the image 
> to label the image
> > i.e.
> > alt=&quot;Arabic&quot; .. etc) that the native speakers 
> themselves will
> > easily
> > recognise?
> 
> Text in images has many well-known accessibility issues, and 
> adds nothing. Just use the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 05:27:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT