- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:50:07 -0700
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough)
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, WAI ER group <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
At 02:58 PM 9/27/2000 , William Loughborough wrote: >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". Apples, oranges, William. >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. I think you may be missing the point -- the discussion has not been about "should image text require a text equivalent", it was "should image text be thrown out entirely for double-A compliance". >Let me repeat "image-text is in fact image". I don't think anyone is claiming it's not, so I'm not sure you need to make this point so forcefully. :) However, I think you may have missed _my_ point, because your response doesn't really address it... -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Director of Accessibility, Edapta http://www.edapta.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/ Accessibility Roundtable Web Broadcast http://kynn.com/+on24 What's on my bookshelf? http://kynn.com/books/
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2000 18:08:00 UTC