RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text

Len,

	My inclination is to drop 1.0 and work on 2.0. Therefore, my vote is to
say no, the links are not a problem. As has been pointed out there are
bigger problems on the site, such as an impossible background on the
shopping page. The site deperately begs for icons to help those PA citizens
who aren't proficient readers find their way around. Re: the shopping page:
Make a decent shopping bag icon out of the background images, then lighten
the shopping bag background so you can see the text more easily. Tell your
audience that whether it's yes or no in the long run, they need to address
the needs of the visual limited reader user. They don't want to put a
damper on the church-bus-loads of Virginians headed to the Reading outlets,
do they?

					Anne



					Anne

At 11:31 AM 11/28/00 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>     For example
> 
> http://papower.state.pa.us/PAPower/
> 
>  I have to point to each of those textual image links and say
> 
> <>
> 
>     YES
> 
>     or
>                                         
>     NO
> 
> <>
> 
> ""
> 
>   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
><> ?)
> 
> 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
>   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
> "
> 
>  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/   )
> 
>  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.)
> 
>   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
>  "" or
> "".
> 
>  "".
> 
>  And should whatever wording we come up with to replace 3.1 still keep these
>  sites in violation?
> 
>  "".
> 
>  Does Lisa's latest wording accomplish this, i.e. keep these sites in
>violation:
> 
> ""
> 
>  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
> >  It is
> >when reading words is needed for repeated and important navigation elements
> >  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
> >>  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
> >>"" 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.
> >>   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
>                  (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
>          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/
> 
> 
> -- 
>       phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>                      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
>
>  -- 
>         
> Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at
>Temple University
>                         
>          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/ 
Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 18:01:08 UTC