Re: Kynn's Reply: Textual Images vs. Styled Text

At 2:29 PM -0500 11/28/00, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>Kynn,
>Thanks for the binary answers.
>But I don't think you're addressing exactly what I was asking.

I disagree.

>Your argument says why we shouldn't have this guideline.  But that's 
>not the question here.

This isn't what I said.  I am following the guideline and interpreting
what it says.

>The only question is what is says, which is:
>quote
>1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than 
>images to convey information. [Priority 2] For example, use MathML 
>to mark up mathematical equations, and style sheets to format text 
>and control layout. Also, avoid using images to represent text -- 
>use text and style sheets instead.
>unquote

The emphasis above is yours, it should probably be noted.  The part we
are debating is "when an appropriate markup language exists" -- and in
my opinion the word "appropriate" means "does what I, the author, want
it to do."

By the way, irony of irony, your added emphasis was done with the
following code:

quote<br>
<br>
1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than
images to convey information. [Priority 2] For example, use MathML to
mark up mathematical equations, and <font color="#0000FF"><u>style
sheets</u></font> to format text and control layout. <b>Also, avoid using
images to represent text -- use text and style sheets instead. <br>
<br>
</b>unquote<br>

I got a chuckle out of it, at least.

>It plainly says to avoid using images to represent text.

In the "explanatory text."  Which I feel to be in error.

>Now, you might say that "avoid" falls short of mandatory. But if we 
>weaken "avoid" that way, it makes 7.1 to "avoid" flicker (Priority 
>1) optional, and if we truly want no flicker we'll have to make that 
>an errata,  and examine at all the other uses of "avoid".

That is a good idea.  We should indeed examine all uses of the term
"avoid".  If the original meaning was "do not use images to represent
text", I doubt that the current WCAG 1.0 would state "avoid" instead.

>You might also say that the statement falls within the "For example" 
>clause and claim that anything within a "for example" is optional, 
>as long as you do it some other way.  But if that's what "for 
>example" means, then we're not even requiring ALT text, since ALT 
>text falls inside a "for example".

Correct.  ALT text is a technique and belongs in the techniques
document.

>So we'll have to make that an errata also, and examine all the other 
>places that use "For example" (which is practically every guideline).

If you're stating that WCAG 1.0 is poorly edited, well, that may offend
some of the current editors (and I apologize, because I like you all
very much), but it's probably also true.

>Well, since "avoid" and "for example" aren't defined, I suppose 
>those are escapes, but if we use them to escape we have to admit 
>that every other part of the guidelines that use "for example" or 
>"avoid" have to be re-considered.  Is that your position?

It's my position, and I've stated it before, that WCAG 1.0 is a flawed
document and the mistakes of WCAG 1.0 should not be repeated in WCAG
2.0.

>But again, that's not the question I was asking.  I was asking if 
>_these particular sites_ would be in violation; by which I mean of 
>course these particular sites as they exist right now.  Right now, 
>they have no other means to provide scalability.  So even if we all 
>we did was impose a high level requirement of scalability they would 
>still be in violation.

Right now, WCAG 1.0 is vague, and is unclear on this issue.  Therefore
it is not possible to state whether or not they are in compliance with
this specific checkpoint, as written.  So the next question became
"how should this checkpoint be written?"

>Note that the first two questions addresses the narrow issue of 
>whether certain current sites are, in their current form P2 
>compliant.  That's my current,  real world concern--e.g. what I'll 
>be  telling an auditorium full of webmasters next week.  If the 
>sites aren't compliant, one way to fix them is with CSS.  You raise 
>the question of what other methods we should allow.  A fair 
>question.  But first, I'd really like to see if we can just agree on 
>whether sites as they exist today are compliant.
>What are your answers to the more narrow question?   Are the sites 
>as they exist now P2 compliant?

There is no such thing as "P2 compliant".  If you are asking if they
are Double-A compliant, we will have to look at all of the P1 and P2
checkpoints.  (I'm not sure why I'm having to explain WCAG 1.0
conformance terminology to the ER chair.)

I'm not trying to dodge your narrow question, but I believe the question
should be "are they accessible enough, and to whom?" not "are they
Double-A compliant?"  I feel your narrow question is too narrow and
you have chosen it to get a specific answer.

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

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 20:44:52 UTC