- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:25:48 -0700
- To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WAI ER group <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
At 12:08 PM -0400 9/26/00, Leonard R. Kasday wrote: >I don't think it satisfies the user requirements for people with >some degree of low vision, especially if the font size is relatively >small. Devil's advocate position here: Doesn't the widespread availability of screen magnifiers (such as the one built into Windows 2000), plus the availability of screenreaders to read out the textual content, plus the ability to turn off images and view the text directly (thus scaling with user font changes), reduce the need for avoiding textual images? If we don't have to worry about providing audio streams -- because screenreaders exist -- then shouldn't the existence of the various technologies listed above likewise ease our fears regarding text buttons? We are willing to say "oh, there's technology to deal with -that-" for a number of items, so where is the line drawn? (If screenreaders did not exist, the obligation would be on the web designer to provide an aural output stream for everything, no?) --Kynn -- -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2000 12:31:17 UTC