- From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@whatuwant.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:45:11 -0800
- To: "'seeman@netvision.net.il'" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "WAI (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <F0CBA28A8CE1D311B64300508BC216228CC88B@saruman.seattle.wuwinc.com>
I vote yes, for 2 reasons.
1) Maginification is available both as accessibility aids (I saw some
software for zooming at CSUN last year), and at an operating system level
(lower the resoution of your screen)
2) Not everything that can be done in a text image can be done in CSS.
Even as a fairly enlighted web dev, who would rather use real text both for
accessibility and for localizablity, I have had to resort to image text in a
few situations, because things that were requirements for the site were not
available in CSS. Some examples...
a) anti-aliasing. A big one (which I haven't seen mentioned in this thread)
is anti-aliasing. There is no way to tell a browser to anti-alias "real"
text. Some operating systems support anti-aliasing of all text, but not
all, and it's not turned on by default in many versions of Windows. Large,
aliased text is REALLY UGLY, and being really ugly, can have an effect on
the look/feel, usablitiy, friendliness, and utimately the return traffic to
your site.
b) specialized fonts. Not all browsers support font embedding. There are
times when a particular font is essential to meaning (see earlier thread on
branding for some examples)
c) specialized font treatments. The graphical links on PA site in question
are somewhat slanted. They don't appear to be quite italic or quite
vertical. I'm not aware of a way in CSS to say "incline this text 15%. I
haven't looked at in awhile, so I may be wrong on this one.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 3:04 AM
To: WAI (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Textual Images vs. Styled Text
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/ <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 <http://www.temple.edu/> which has a lot of
graphical text in navigation.
the OLD Bobby site http://www.cast.org/bobby/old/
<http://www.cast.org/bobby/old/> used graphical text but
the new site http://www.cast.org/bobby/ <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 <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/ <http://www.edapta.com/%A0> (also large but
lower contrast) (Hi Kynn :-) )
Section 508 http://www.section508.gov/ <http://www.section508.gov/> (Most
of it is CSS, but the folder
tabs are graphics)
Yahoo http://www.yahoo.com/ <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>
>< 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
<http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
mailto:kasday@acm.org <mailto:kasday@acm.org>
Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/>
The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
<http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/>
--
Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org
<mailto:charles@w3.org%A0%A0> phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI
<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
<http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
mailto:kasday@acm.org <mailto:kasday@acm.org>
Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/>
The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
<http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/>
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 15:41:58 UTC