RE: consensus?? RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text

Dear Wendy,
I am glad that we are returning to this.  I agree with Kynn that you
represent the two sides of the discussion well.  I disagree with your
conclusion, but I do understand your reasoning.  Allow me the following
observations.

(1)  I think the precedent of one arm of the W3C (the WAI) concluding that
other formal specifications of the W3C (CSS) is "not an appropriate
technology" is exceedingly dangerous.

(2)  The original checkpoint references MathML as an appropriate markup.
Clearly, support by the "big 2" was not one of the original guiding
principles in the formation of the WCAG.

(3)  SVG is still in working draft.  When it is formally released, I think
it is quite reasonable to expect the W3C to use those specifications for
logo and buttons -- even before the "big 2" have compatible versions.  Is it
not the plan for SVG to feature automatically loading of
replacement/alternative GIFs for non-compliant browsers?

(4)  To my mind, logo's are quite different than graphical text used in
image maps and navigation buttons.  I think the guidelines should
distinguish between the two.

(5)  With your proposed re-write, why not drop the checkpoint all together?
Is it meant to only apply to body text?  Large blocks of graphical text are
(thankfully) pretty rare now days.

(6)  I am prepared that I may be on the loosing side of this particular
debate.  I would still be opposed to adding the "except for stylized
navigation buttons" to the errata.  It would, IMHO, be better to leave the
more vague text alone.  (At least then, I could fight this battle latter --
smile).

Thanks.
-- 
Bruce Bailey
...the usual disclaimers apply about this being only the author's opinion...

Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 16:50:51 UTC