- From: jonathan chetwynd <jc@signbrowser.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:52:53 -0000
- To: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@crosslink.net>, "Bruce Bailey" <bbailey@clark.net>, "w3c" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Anne: I cannot agree to the need to remove SVG. What is needed is a well thought out and executed graphical demonstration of the intended benefits. as we are agreed the current example neither does justice to bitmaps, png or svg. If text is needed to describe the benefits, it's nowhere near being a real proposition. One can describe colour blindness with words, but the tests for it are not hidden in masses of text. Gill sans says what it is, but the beauty, is in the beholding. What are the current 'tests' for SVG, and where are they published? please note I am not referring to textual descriptions or algebraic formulae, but graphical representations that john doe can evaluate. There is a disgraceful and persistent refusal to create graphic intensive pages on the w3 site. Can we be assured that when and if SVG is supported, graphics will appear on the site? (I have serious doubts, as png, jpg and gif are fairly universal, yet there is extremely limited use.) What popular concensus is there that states, that proprietary graphics formats are neither universal nor accessible, and hence cannot be used? jonathan chetwynd some very wonderful examples of bitmaps are linked from http://www.signbrowser.org.uk/alf/i.html jc@signbrowser.org.uk IT teacher (learning difficulty) & accessibility consultant
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2000 11:59:29 UTC