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

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Anne Pemberton wrote:

  At 03:27 PM 10/16/00 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
  >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.
AP  
  Wendy, being realistic, the browsers will never be able to duplicate the
  never-ending supply of fonts that designers can and will create and expect
  to use on the web. It would be better to tell designers what they CAN do
  (alt text the words in the image) .. and be done with it.  

CMN
Being realistic, the technology is already implemented. I expect it will be
widely available in weeks rather than months, but I expect wide penetration
to take months at least. 

WC
  >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.
CMN
Not necessarily. A code example:

<h1><img src="head1.gif" alt="A code example:"/></h1>
<p><img src="para1.gif" alt="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."/></p>

Cheers

Charles

Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2000 05:58:22 UTC