W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Textual Images vs. Styled Text, Round Two *ding*

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:43:36 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.0.19.2.20000927153459.00a5cab0@mail.gorge.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, WAI ER group <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
At 02:50 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>I think you may have missed _my_ point...

Nope. Everyone's missing the "point" - there is no such entity as "image 
text". When an image is made of <em><strong>anything </em></strong>it 
becomes "image" and must endure the same requirements whether it is an 
image of text or an image showing apples vs. oranges. It requires a textual 
equivalent.

KB::  "I don't think anyone is claiming it's not, so I'm not sure you need 
to make this point so forcefully. :)"

WL: The reason I'm sure that I do need to make the point "forcefully" is 
that somehow it has been allowed to slip by that images of text are a 
special case of images. They are not. IMO this also goes for PDF. The clear 
purpose of the guidelines applicable to this entire genre is that if 
there's any semantics in there it must be teased out. If not, then...

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2000 18:45:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT