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

>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.

Is it wise to use MathML as an example here?  Unless I'm missing out on something,
 there's no browser available to even display it.  

Geoff Freed
WGBH/NCAM





On Monday, October 16, 2000, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org> wrote:
>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 16:22:33 UTC