RE: 19 October 2000 minutes

Kynn,

She didn't only say she preferred the real text.  Please note that she also 
said she found the image of text

quote
very difficult to read
unquote

Now the wcag guidelines define priority 2 violations as those for which

quote
one or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the document
unquote

Therefore, it seems to me that if someone finds text
quote
very difficult to read
unquote

it's an obvious Priority 2 violation.


Len

p.s.
If you want to argue that she and other people with low vision shouldn't 
have found it very difficult... see the (typically) extensive analysis that 
Gregory just posted.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000OctDec/0194.html

Also, more specifically, in the example I asked her to judge, 
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday/drs/facultyhandbookoverview-mandate.htm
if you merely magify the images, e.g. using Opera at 200% you find that the 
text becomes blurred (due to the anti-aliasing used in the font), If you 
magnify it further (e.g. Opera at 5000%) the pixelizing that William 
referred to becomes apparent.




At 03:53 PM 10/20/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 01:15 PM 10/20/2000 , Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
> >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
> >She said, quote
> >I very much prefer the print on Version 2 [real text].
> >unquote
>
>Preferences are not barriers.
>
>If I'm using Lynx, I -prefer- to have a menu bar which goes across
>the top of the page, not one which goes down the side of the page.
>
>If I'm struggling to use a screenreader, I -prefer- to have a menu
>bar at the bottom of the page, not at the top.
>
>Neither of those cases introduces barriers to access.  The information
>is still accessible.
>
>I'd call that a priority 3, not a priority 2, based solely on the
>concept of what's "preferred."
>
>(BTW, once again, I am not arguing that this wouldn't be a GREAT thing
>to do -- these kinds of "preferences" are what make Edapta's method
>_so much better_ than the single-source method.  However, if someone
>is still stuck with 20th century web design, it's as unfair to say
>"don't use textual graphics" as it is to say "don't use a menu bar
>on the left side."  You are letting the _preference_ of a few dictate
>design for _all_, and that won't fly, except maybe as priority 3.)
>
>--Kynn
>
>--
>Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
>Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
>Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
>AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
>What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/

--
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/