- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:03:40 +0200
- To: "WAI \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <006901c059f4$4a0c8280$3490003e@ndcil.com>
I vote "no" too. Even with the more relaxed version of the wording "
grafical function" etc, the welcome message, is pure text in images, no way
out.
I also think that this page <em>should</em> not have P2 states (and not just
that it does not). There is true content that is very difficult for a
disabled group to access.
And that is just not within the sprit, or the letter, of P2 compliance.
Sorry,
L
-----Original Message-----
From: Leonard R. Kasday [mailto:kasday@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 6:31 PM
To: Charles McCathieNevile
Cc: Bailey, Bruce; 'WAI-GL'; 'seeman@netvision.net.il'
Subject: RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text
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/
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 06:23:18 UTC