RE: Len's CSS solution for the text in image problem - will designers adopt?

Wendy and group,

I agree with Len, also.  From a low-vision / no vision perspective, the CSS
would allow the visual design to gracefully degrade so that a screen reader
should be able to access it and a personalized style sheet should be able to
allow the supported UA to render the page in an accessible manner for
low-vision users requiring specialized color combinations and / or screen
magnification.  Those sites I design with alternative text-only pages are
done with CSS so that, when it comes time to build the text-only version, I
simply remove that style (sheet) from the page.

Regarding the possibility of designers balking due to the lack of CSS
support in older browsers or those designed for alternative operating
systems, I think that when they consider that the move is toward UA's that
support CSS, there will be less concern.  Largely, those browsers that do
not support CSS do not offer the designer much in the way of visual control.
A common complaint that I hear from designers not using CSS is that their
hard work does not look right on systems running any browser other than that
which resides on the system where the page was developed.  For example, "I
have to design this for IE4 because that is my company's standard, but in
Navigator and IE5 it looks wrong."  I speculate that if the user's browser
does not support CSS then it is likely that much of the other stylistic
design would be lost or butchered because of the browser's other
limitations.  If they look at CSS as a global design tool rather than a
single page design tool, or an in-line design tool, or only a work-around
for the shortcomings of a browser's inability to properly align page
objects, they will come to realize the flexibility and power CSS offers
them.

If CSS is not employed, consider that if text rendered graphically offers
the person without sight no more information than the person with sight, it
really doesn't matter if it exists on the page; it exists simply for visual
appeal.  If that image provides any information not found in text, a caption
or description of the image should be provided that offers the same
intrinsic interactivity.  For example, a company logo may appear on a page
that, when clicked, sends the person to that company's home page.  If there
is no text link on the page to the company's home page, one should be
provided.  Perhaps it could even indicate that there is a logo on the page
and that this link will take the user to the home page.  In Len's example of
the snakes forming the letter 'O', a caption could be added to the page that
indicates there are two snakes coiled together end-to-end to from the letter
'O' in such a way that does not detract from the visual appeal of the page.
If the designer feels that there are sufficient instances of such graphics
that the visual appeal of the page begins to suffer, they should consider
building a text-only version of that page.  People without sight still
appreciate visual things like the snakes in the shape of an 'O', as in the
example.  They still laugh at the same "sight gags" as anyone else, when
properly described.  They are still emotionally moved by the same things
that move us visually, when they are clued in on what it is that we are
reacting to.

I think that freedom of speech and accessibility aren't mutually exclusive.
It is perfectly OK for a site to be inaccessible to certain groups if the
site is not meant for access by persons who make up that group.  I can't
access sites rendered in Chinese because I don't speak or read that
language.  I am not offended by the fact that there is a group of people who
have exclusive access to the information presented therein.  Certainly,
people who offer services to the public would want to make their site as
accessible as possible, and they should.  I would be unsettled if my DMV
built a license renewal site that was offered only in Chinese.  I often see
examples of companies, government service agencies and special interest
groups go so far out of their way to restrict graphic design in favor of the
blind public to the degree of making their site less accessible to others
with non-visual disabilities.  Each does not need to be exclusive to the
other.

Lastly, it concerns me greatly to see comments like those made by another
contributor who suggested that we make some of the standards unattainable.
Our state is operating under a mandate from the Governor's office to move
our forms, brochures, and other customer service information to the
Internet.  Part of that mandate requires, naturally, that the data be
accessible to our citizens.  To say the least, I have been consulting with
nearly every state agency regarding how to design for accessibility.  I have
been strongly urging those interested in accessibility to review the WAI
site and to try their best to follow the guidelines therein.  I have had to
provide numerous presentations to agencies with design staff and agencies
with no design staff, a watered-down version of the WAI guidelines because
it is often indicated to me that the current guidelines are too extensive to
integrate into their design scheme.  Read that as, "I don't have the next
three weeks to wade through all of this stuff to try to apply that to an
existing hundred page web site."  It is difficult for folks to digest easily
as it is.

Simply put, if the bar is raised too high, folks are going to go elsewhere
for their guidelines.  If you were to look at many of the state and federal
sites today, their accessibility claim-to-fame is that their site is "Bobby
Approved".  This isn't a bad thing, except that they are often under the
impression that this makes them accessible in the same sense that following
the WAI standards makes them accessible.  I've been trying to convince them
that, while Bobby is an excellent tool, they should strive for meeting the
WAI standards as much as possible.  Getting folks to look at their sites
from a WAI  perspective has been akin to pushing rope.  They're usually
pretty impressed with themselves, initially, given that they thought to seek
Bobby approval.  While I understand the importance of setting consistent,
fair and technically complete standards, making it impossible for people to
meet those standards will elicit the response, "Why bother?"  They may balk
at difficult, but they're sure to give up at impossible.

Respectfully submitted,
Dan Aunspach
Computer Systems/Rehabilitation Engineer
Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 6:07 PM
To: 'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'
Cc: Kynn Bartlett; Cynthia Shelly; marshall@hwg.org
Subject: Len's CSS solution for the text in image problem - will
designers adopt?


Hello,

I really like Len's solution.

Kynn, Cynthia, Marshall, and others who represent designers, do you think
it will it be accepted by designers?  It's using CSS which won't be
supported on older browsers which causes me to anticipate designers balking
at this.

I am being swayed a bit back towards the "idealist" argument, that we
should hold high standards and encourage all of the pieces to fall into the
right place to make them happen.  The gist of checkpoint 3.1 is correct,
"provide text rather than text in images" but today, people are not able to
satisfy this checkpoint in an acceptable way.

I would really like to say, "logos are the only exception to checkpoint
3.1."

--wendy

Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2000 00:23:14 UTC