- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:05:05 -0800
- To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Len, As shown by the number of sites that INTEND to comply with WCAG 1.0 but that do not, I don't feel you are asking these folks to do something that, long term, is an issue. A greater issue are the needs of those who can't use the page because it's devoid of illustrations for the text. If I was addressing your audience, I'd focus on the things that need the most work, and illustrating is one. But I understand your position, since the text in images is mentioned in WCAG 1.0 and the need for illustrations still isn't cemented in in either WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0. Anne At 07:14 PM 11/28/00 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote: >Anne, > >I don't understand what you're saying. What does our desire to work on 2.0 >have to do with whether the links violate WCAG 1.0? > >Len >p.s. >You're absolutely right about the background. Black on dark blue is >difficult to read. And it gets worse with age, with makes blues >darker. And the graphics doen't seem to be that helpful. > >At 05:58 PM 11/28/00 -0800, Anne Pemberton wrote: >>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 > >-- >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/ > > 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 Wednesday, 29 November 2000 07:08:12 UTC