RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text

Thanks Lisa and Bruce for returning to this question

(By the way, even though Bruce's answer came in my email, I don't see it in 
the GL archives... bug in the archive program?)

To make this really concrete, here's a number of sites that use graphical 
text in navigation elements.  Do these violate the current wording of 3.1 
which says, among other things:

"... , avoid using images to represent text -- use text and style sheets 
instead. "

It seems to me that a lot of sites, including sites of institutions with 
the highest commitment to accessibility, have overlooked this.

Since I'm going to name some other people's sites, I'll start with the site 
of my own home institution

http://www.temple.edu which has a lot of graphical text in navigation.

the OLD Bobby site http://www.cast.org/bobby/old/  used graphical text but 
the new site http://www.cast.org/bobby/  uses CSS (except for the logo and 
thereabouts which is fine I think)

The trace home page http://trace.wisc.edu uses graphical text (although 
it's better than at my institution, since Trace's navigation links are 
large and high contrast)

Edapta http://www.edapta.com/   (also large but lower contrast) (Hi Kynn :-)  )

Section 508 http://www.section508.gov/ (Most of it is CSS, but the folder 
tabs are graphics)

Yahoo http://www.yahoo.com/  (Interestingly, the underlined text links at 
the very top, Auction, Messenger, etc., look like real text--they even show 
the default color and underlines--but they are actually part of the image.)

And the list goes on.  As you can see, users of graphical text in 
navigation elements are in very good company.

But nonetheless, do these uses of graphical text as navigation elements 
violate the current wording of 3.1?  I hope we can reduce this to "yes" or 
"no".

My opinion:  "yes".

And should whatever wording we come up with to replace 3.1 still keep these 
sites in violation?

My opinion:  "yes".

Does Lisa's latest wording accomplish this, i.e. keep these sites in violation:

My opinion: "yes"

What do other folks think?

Len

At 01:05 PM 11/22/00 -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>Dear Lisa,
>
>I am glad I am not the only one concerned that it's been three or four
>teleconference calls and we still don't have an answer to the rather
>straight forward question Len originally asked:
>
>Is graphical text (even with appropriate ALT tags) on navigation elements
>(e.g., navigation button bars and image maps) a P2 violation?
>
>Once we answer this question, and probably not before, we can get down to
>the business of re-wording WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 3.1 (if that's even
>necessary)!
>
>I don't think banner ads are much of obstacle -- since they could fall into
>the same category as logos and are permitted some artistic license.  It is
>when reading words is needed for repeated and important navigation elements
>that graphical text becomes a barrier to accessibility.  Graphic text on one
>or two buttons is really not a problem.
>
>-- Bruce Bailey
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [ mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
><mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org> ] On
> > Behalf Of Lisa Seeman
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:36 AM
> > To: WAI (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Text on banners
> >
> > I thinking about this again (Maybe I was a bit fed up with the current
> > threads? Did not dare get sucked into  it - anyway, someone
> > should propose
> > something ;)
> >
> > Anyway With the current wording, text that does not have a primarily
> > grafical function in a graphic is out.
> >
> > What about a review of the term text and textual content, or
> > adjustment to
> > the word to make it "relevant textual content" in other
> > words, content that
> > is relevant to the aim or a goal of the site, should not be
> > in the form of a
> > graphic, unless that text is of a has a primarily graphical
> > function - I.E.
> > not banners and ads
> >
> > OK the wording sucks.
> >
> > Oh all right, I'll try again
> >
> > 3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists AND WILL WORK,
> > use markup
> > rather than images to convey information TO ALLOW TEXT SCALABILITY.
> > [Priority 2]   For example, use SVG for line art, MathML to mark up
> > mathematical equations, and CSS for text-oriented special
> > effects. 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.
> >
> > That, with a glossary definition, should take care of
> > annoying banners that
> > no user wants to see.
> >
> > Still could do with a rewrite
> > See U,
> > L

--
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple 
University
(215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 21:43:10 UTC