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

As far as I know most modern browsers have Unicode support which means
that language packs are not needed to do this.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of P.H.Lauke
Sent: 29 September 2003 10:26
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>


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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>