RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text

At 11:31 AM -0500 11/28/00, 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.

I'm just curious, why can't you simply pronounce whatever you like?
Surely if you err on the side of caution, there won't be any legal
liability issues.

>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/
>As it is, I simply read what I see as the plain meaning of WCAG 1.0 
>and say "no"

Let's talk about imagemaps for a sec.  Please excuse the diversion.

If the navigation bar on the left were an imagemap, we would have pretty
clear rules about how it works:

1.  PRIORITY ONE:  Use client side imagemap with alt text on each
     area tag.
2.  PRIORITY THREE:  Add a set of text links at the bottom which enable
     navigation in case imagemaps can't be understood.

(Leaving aside the issue of text in images for the time being.)

Is there also the following?

3.  PRIORITY TWO:  Never use imagemaps.

That's not written that I can see -- except, of course, that most
imagemaps contain text, and it's usually a usability fault to have those
unlabeled, except for the _most obvious_ of graphical icons.

A strict reading of "never use text in images because they can't
scale" will rule out the use of graphics with text such as imagemaps.
Will it also prevent, for example, the use of graphics containing
pictures of text?  Would it be a P2 error to provide a photograph of
Florida's infamous butterfly ballot?

>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.

The problem with a document such as WCAG 1.0 is that it is not clear
enough that someone can state authoritatively, meaning that in order
for anyone to understand it, they have to come back and ask the working
group for a ruling on a document that the current working group didn't
write and isn't charged to write.

I, too, would like to see more work on WCAG 2.0 -- because I think that
document will avoid some of the obvious flaws in WCAG 1.0 such as those
which this current controversy is highlighting.

--Kynn
-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 20:44:38 UTC