RE: 19 October 2000 minutes

First of all, even if we agree that text in graphics isn't an absolute 
barrier, all that means is that images of text is not Priority 1.  It can 
still be priority 2.

As for how much of a barrier it is.  The people best able to judge are 
people with low vision.  I asked one person, a friend of mine with 20/200 
vision to compare the pages at http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday/drs/   This 
was part of my work here at Temple, BTW; it preceded this discussion.  She 
uses a large (19") monitor, and the usual windows tricks to magnify print 
in place (without a magnifier).

She said, quote

I very much prefer the print on Version 2 [real text].  Just because I love 
color, I
prefer the overall look of Version 1 [image of text].  However, I find the 
print at the top
and side on Version 1 [image of text] very difficult to read and very 
uninviting.

unquote

The notations in [square brackets] are mine.
Incidentally, the version with html text could have been improved, e.g. by 
using style sheets to remove the underlines from the links in the menus and 
making them black, and using graphical bullets in the list items.  I 
believe this would have made her opinion stronger, since it would have both 
increased the contrast, making it more readable, and restored touches of 
color (in the bullets), making it more aesthetically pleasing.;

Her answer was "difficult to read and uninviting".  sounds like a Priority 
2 or at least a priority 3 to me.
Now, that's just one person of course, but I'd give it more weight than the 
personal preferences of people who, like you or me, have normal vision.

I suggest we stipulate that images of text are significant barriers until 
we get a consensus from people with low vision that it's not.

Len



At 09:01 AM 10/20/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 9:31 AM -0400 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?
>
>Actually, I'm not convinced of this, with the ability of those users
>to turn -off- graphics.
>
>All of the content is available; none is hidden in the markup.  It
>is clear what any given graphic represents.
>
>Thus there are no absolute barriers to access, because the information
>can be accessed in a simple, easy way which is available for free in
>every browser.
>
>(You can argue that turning off graphics may cause extra complications
>to accessing that information -- but this is the case with _any_
>single-presentation solution!  This problem only illustrates the
>need for a solution such as Edapta's -- because this entire
>debate becomes a _non-issue_ when you are able to generate optimized
>user experiences!)
>
>--Kynn
>--
>--
>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
>http://www.kynn.com/

--
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple 
University
(215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 16:15:02 UTC