RE: Text on banners

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