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

At 12:01 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>However, it is important to recognize that HTML + CSS is _not_ a workable 
>general replacement for images as text.

Nor is "image as text" a workable replacement for "text as text". At some 
point in the so-called "design process" that text that became "image-text" 
was actual "text - text". Just as the PDF text or table was once not a 
"scanned-type" of text. The proportion of today's text that is not at some 
point in its career in digital (dare I even say it "ascii") form is 
miniscule. I don't know why "image text" is any different than any other 
image in requiring a text equivalent? In short I think this is already 
covered early in the guidelines.

Let me repeat "image-text is in fact image". The fact that it's an image of 
text is of no consequence, it's still "image" - full stop. The image of a 
book cover with the author's name in some supposedly artistic font is an 
image, not text. The author's name need not even be in the alt-text if the 
designer doesn't think it's important to serve as a replacement for the 
image of the book cover. The designer need not explain that "the eerie 
mysticism of the illustration has been enhanced by the selection of a font 
that..." That's up to the designer. If she can suffer the belief that the 
proper replacement text for the missing image is "book cover" then so be 
it. If semantics is involved we are in another venue.


Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2000 18:00:18 UTC