- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:48:03 +0200
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <001101c0293a$734c5c00$5fa1003e@ndcil.com>
I may have missed the point, but saying no text on images would disqualify our WAI accessibility (priority level) logo. Yours, L -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of William Loughborough Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 12:44 AM To: Kynn Bartlett Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; WAI ER group; WAI UA group Subject: Re: Textual Images vs. Styled Text, Round Two *ding* 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 Thursday, 28 September 2000 05:58:13 UTC