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

RE: alt text & punctuation - best practice?

From: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:20:40 -0400
Message-ID: <B239BEDED044074C8E2CCC3A9162F2A90A26D892@swilnts804.wil.fusa.com>
To: <sdale@stevendale.com>, <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I'm now very confused.  Then again, maybe I have been all my life.  If the alt attribute contains the same text as an image, is the image/text considered accessible?  Can magnifiers enlarge tool tips?  What magnifiers should I install to test with?  Assuming images are used, where is the happy middle place that satisfies the needs of as many as possible?  

Still trying to understand how to do the right thing when it comes to images with text...

Kurt Mattes
Application Development Analyst
Technical Lead - Web Accessibility
[302] 282-1414 * Kurt_Mattes@BankOne.com


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Steven Dale
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:29 AM
To: david@djwhome.demon.co.uk
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: alt text & punctuation - best practice?



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

-Steve


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).





**********************************************************************
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you
**********************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 05:21:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:33 UTC