consensus?? RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text, Round Three *ding*

Hello,

I have reread this entire thread both on IG and GL.  I have given this a 
lot of thought.  I expect disagreement with my conclusions.

The question is:  Does checkpoint 3.1completely outlaw the use of text in 
images.
<blockquote>
3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than 
images to convey information. [Priority 2] For example, use MathML to mark 
up mathematical equations, and style sheets to format text and control 
layout. Also, avoid using images to represent text -- use text and style 
sheets instead.
</blockquote>

I have boiled the arguments into the following two positions:

1. Checkpoint 3.1 of WCAG 1.0 is open to interpretation because people 
believe that adequate support for "an appropriate markup language" does not 
exist.  CSS and SVG as languages exist, but the support for them does 
not.  Therefore, it <em>should be</em> possible to use images to create 
text effects and as long as those images have alt-text a site can claim 
WCAG 1.0 AA Conformance.

2. Checkpoint 3.1 of WCAG 1.0 is <em>not</em> open to interpretation 
because CSS and SVG exist and it is possible to create text effects in 
markup language.  Therefore, it <em>should not be</em> possible to use 
images to create text effects and claim WCAG 1.0 AA Conformance.  The 
primary reason for using markup is for the user to control the 
presentation, particularly to increase the font size.

This is a priority 2 checkpoint.  People can clearly claim WCAG 1.0 single 
A conformance and use text in images.

Conformance to Double A becomes cloudy when we discuss logos or proprietary 
(or rare) fonts.   It is possible to create logos in SVG, however SVG is 
not widely supported. As 3.1 is worded, "an appropriate markup language" 
exists, but the support does not.  Therefore, as it is worded non of the 
W3C sites can claim higher than single A conformance because we include 
logos on the majority of our site.  Note that many of those pages currently 
claim AAA conformance.  Therefore, we can infer that we have been 
interpreting this checkpoint to mean that an appropriate markup language 
does not exist.

In Opera it is possible to increase the font size of all text, including 
alt-text for images, up to 1000%.  It is very easy to turn images on and 
off in Opera.  One only need press "g" or click on a button on the menu 
bar.  Therefore, if someone with low vision were using the page with opera 
and had difficulty reading the text in an image, they could easily toggle 
between seeing the image and reading the "magnified" alt-text.

With the current state of browsers, I do not believe it is possible to 
avoid using text in images. Tools exist that will allow users to magnify 
the alt-text of those images.  There are also tools that will read text out 
loud.

I believe that many of the pages in the W3C site can continue to claim 
Triple A conformance to WCAG 1.0 because the appropriate markup language is 
not supported.  As Lisa pointed out, our own WCAG conformance logo does not 
conform to checkpoint 3.1.  Why?  Because it is very important to establish 
the "brand" of both the W3C and WCAG, same with Bobby, and all other logos.

By saying that people can not use logos and claim anything higher than a 
single A would make the other levels of conformance pointless.

Therefore, I have to agree that sites may use text in images and claim 
Double A conformance. However, we should limit the use of text in images to 
only what is necessary for branding.  I propose limiting text in images to 
logos and navigation buttons.  It should not be possible to put an entire 
paragraph of text in an image and claim Double A conformance because you 
lose the structure of the document.

The only case that remains that I find difficult to satisfy is the case 
that Cynthia pointed out where a company is using images in headings as 
part of branding.  My concern is that people could claim "branding" for so 
many things to avoid converting something to markup.  I believe this 
example violates another checkpoint, 3.5 Use header elements to convey 
document structure and use them according to specification. [Priority 2] 
Therefore, someone that wedded to appearance is probably only going to 
claim Single A and we should all be satisfied with that.

I propose we add the following to the errata:
3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than 
images to convey information. [Priority 2] For example, use MathML to mark 
up mathematical equations, and style sheets to format text and control 
layout. Also, avoid using images to represent text -- use text and style 
sheets instead -- except for logos and stylized navigation buttons used to 
create a distinctive look to a site.

Thoughts?
--wendy
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 15:19:47 UTC