RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text

And to really pin it down, since you used those qualifying words "in general"

Lets take a particular case... the page

http://papower.state.pa.us/PAPower/

When I get up in front of an auditorium full of Pennsylvania Webmasters 
(and webmasters from neighboring states) at the Governor's Statewide PA 
conference next week I tell them all those text links in the upper left, 
"Government in PA" etc (presented in Sans-serif Bold Italic) violate WCAG 
1.0 Priority 2, right?  Even though they all have ALT text?

Is everyone behind me on this one?  Please, preface any explanation with 
"yes" or "no".

Len

p.s.
I'll be telling them the Logo is OK.


At 11:40 AM 11/28/00 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>OK, let me try to get clearer...
>
>I agree with you that the wording of WCAG 1.0 means that images of text are
>in general not able to conform to WCAG 1.0 double-A level.
>
>I agree that it is important for the group to answer this question. If
>necessary, they should say "well, as it is written, WCAG 1.0 says no. We have
>noted this as an issue for WCAG 2.0 to revisit becuase it is too hard for
>people to understand why", or whatever it is that we decide as a group.
>
>In other words, there are two things we need to do. We need to answer the
>question of what is required by WCAG 1.0. Not what we think it should be
>now, but what is it in the document. The second thing is to examine the issue
>that has arisen, to work out how we deal with it in WCAG 2.
>
>cheers
>
>charles
>
>On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>
>   Thanks for the support Charles but my problem is that even as we speak I'm
>   evaluating sites that use textual images--it's my job (well, one of my
>   jobs)-- and I have to pronounce whether they are double A compliant.  For
>   example, Pennsylvania has decreed full WCAG compliance for state internet
>   sites.  I'm talking to the state webmasters next week.  Pennsylvania is
>   covered with textual images and I've got to tell them if they are P2
>   compliant.  For example
>
>   http://papower.state.pa.us/PAPower/
>
>   I can't talk subtle philosophy to this audience.  I have to point to each
>   of those textual image links and say
>
>   <strong>
>
>         YES
>
>         or
>
>         NO
>
>   </strong>
>
>   As it is, I simply read what I see as the plain meaning of WCAG 1.0 and say
>   "no"
>
>   But given the controversy around this, and all the big time sites that use
>   textual images and claim, or wish to claim, double or triple A,  I'd really
>   like to see explicit consensus from this group.  And no matter what wording
>   we come up with, I wouldn't be convinced that we have true conensus until
>   we all look at some pages with textual links and have consensus on those
>   actual examples.
>
>   I realize we want to get on with WCAG 2.0 but if we want people to use WCAG
>   1.0 these sorts of issues have to be addressed now IMO.
>
>   Len
>
>   At 02:03 PM 11/27/00 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>   >This part of other folks thinks that you are pretty right on the mark Len.
>   >(Not really a surprise to me.)
>   >
>   >But I think I'd like to look further into this issue between now and the
>   >Proposed Recommendation draft (does that give me enough time <grin/> ?)
>   >
>   >The key to the problem is not that these are images - that is a 
> symptom. The
>   >key is that they cannot be (easily?) presented in a different way by 
> someone
>   >who can't use the presentation form given.
>   >
>   >charles McCN
>   >
>   >On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>   >
>   >   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/
>   >
>   >
>   >--
>   >Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org   phone: +61 (0) 409 
> 134 136
>   >W3C Web Accessibility 
> Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>   >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>   >September - November 2000:
>   >W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>   >France
>
>   --
>   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/
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>September - November 2000:
>W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, 
>France

--
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 Tuesday, 28 November 2000 12:21:17 UTC