W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: alt text & punctuation - best practice?

From: Steven Dale <sdale@stevendale.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 03:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3206.>
To: <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

LOL   I know that feeling about being attacked by both sides.

I mean the image degrades when blown up at about 5x on magnifiers.

I think images are good also though,  For cognitive problems, icons are
much easier to deal with then text.

I just think if you have images with text in them, the text should be
accessible.  One example I can come up with quickly is the copying of text
into a reader such as Readplease


David Woolley said:
>> If it is blurred at its intended size, zooming in will only make it
>> worse.
> It is not a fault for raster image text to be blurred at its intended
> resolution; it is how dot matric characters can work at all without
> looking pixellated.  In fact, anti-aliasing is itself a blurring
> (low pass spatial filter, operation, and that is generally considered
> desirable).  My argument is that oversized pixellated images, when
> blurred to the same relative level are no less readable than would be
> the intended size viewed by someone with good vision.
> There may be issues that the perception process for large print is
> fundamentally different, e.g. because the whole image cannot be on the
> fovea at the same time, and because non-integral scaling factors do
> introduce artifacts.
> Interestingly, I'm getting attacked from both sides here, as someone
> else is suggesting that I'm totally against text as images (I do
> tbink that most web use of them is misuse of the technology - it needs a
> powerful graphics language, not a back with bitmaps, to do it
> properly - so that the text is really there but transformed in the user
> agent).
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 03:29:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:28 UTC