- 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