- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 05:18:55 -0800
- To: <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "WAI \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 10:36 AM 11/22/00 +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>You may not present relevant textual content as an image, unless the text
>has a primarily graphical function, and the effect cannot be achieved with
>markup, (as in the case of some for logos and limited accent elements)
>provided that you provide a textual equivalent to the content contained in
>the image.
Wordsmithing aside for the moment, I wonder if this doesn't capture the
intent to our satisfaction?
We can argue/discuss/modify "relevant", "primarily graphical", "cannot". We
can "fix" the "provided that you provide" and "content contained in" from a
wordsmith point of view, but can we agree that the
idea/intent/checkpointability is covered?
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 08:16:40 UTC