RE: 19 October 2000 minutes

Bruce,

I took an action yesterday to rewrite the current proposal since we did not 
have agreement on the call as of yesterday.  This issue is still open.

--wendy

At 09:31 AM 10/20/00 , Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>I very much regret not being able to make this call.
>(1)  Are we agreed that graphical text in navigation elements is a
>significant barrier to many folks with low vision?
>(2)  Do we agree that the artistic license that should be extended to logos
>and banners (even when they are links) is very much greater than what is
>warranted by image maps and detailed navigation elements?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>[snip]
> > Errata to 3.1
> > CS As long as not a paragraph.
> > CMN Problem for magnifiers.
> > WC Can use Opera to magnify the alt-text of images.
> > CS Section headings are usually large fonts.
> > WC Text in images to create logos? Does anyone disagree?
> > CMN I am not convinced.
> > JW One could avoid the implication that you can interpret to
> > mean it does
> > not exclude every image.
> > GV If you can't do something so it will work with the
> > browsers on your
> > site, does 3.1 say "it doesn't matter, AA means you must use
> > markup language."
> > JW Did we add into the Errata, Ian's proposal in 11.1? That
> > would take care
> > of it.
> > WC No.
> > CMN It rules out things that can be done using images that
> > should be done
> > in markup. Use MathML to represent math. What can't be done
> > using markup?
> > You don't have strong control over button appearance - how
> > good is css support?
> > WC /* restate my proposal */
> > KB Does proposal cover WAI logo?
> > WC Yes.Let's keep checkpoint as is, but write a clarification
> > that image ok
> > for logo, navigation buttons, image maps.
> > GV "until widely supported" - what if 2/3 of browsers support
> > it. Does that
> > mean we switch? We have a question for how long it is that people are
> > required to do things.
> > WC Since 1.0 errata, i think we can use the until user agent language
> > because 2.0 should be out before until user agent is met.
> > JW Don't think resolve in 1.0 w/errata change, therefore "when an
> > appropriate markup language exists" means "when supported by
> > user agents."
> > MM: A lot of companies won't want to put SVG out for public
> > consumption.
> > Once it's out there it can be stolen. A lot of companies use
> > graphical
> > content to protect info so that things can't be perfectly
> > copied. Would
> > people want to adopt SVG?
> > CMN I don't think that holds. If someone puts an imperfect
> > logo out there
> > is making that logo available whether it is SVG, or gif, or whatever.
> > GR A legal issue.
> > CS What about the word "appropriate." What CMN finds appropriate is
> > different than what a legal person finds appropriate.
> > KB I think most people will want to do specific things that
> > CSS and HTML
> > will not be acceptable solutions. MathML is not acceptable. There are
> > things you can't do.
> > GV Will be a list or tie back to 11 - where possible to do
> > that using xyz
> > then you must. The word appropriate is vague. It is not from
> > the rule but
> > the explanatory text underneath it.
> > CMN The alternative interpretation is for cases where CSS
> > works on Netscape
> > and Explorer etc. then the answer is to apply 11.4 and supply
> > 2 versions.
> > That clearly meets the guidelines as written.
> > Action WC: rework proposal for checkpoint 3.1.
>[snip]

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

Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 10:12:05 UTC