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

Lisa,

	Do you mind if I use your example to answer William's questions about the
use of illustrations on the web? Illustrations are needed for communication
to those who can't do much with text. The web is capable of providing as
many illustrations as the author can collect and link up. Is this as
reasonable as building a wheelchair ramp? Is it as necessary? Can we do it?
Is it sufficient to say that the carpenter hired to do the job doesn't know
the specifications (how much incline is necessary for manual and electric
chair, for example). Would it make sense for a builder to say it's
impossible because he doesn't have "standards" on whether wood, metal or
concrete is the best material? Is the fact that is is easier to add
illustrations than to add CSS make a difference? 

				Anne

At 04:58 PM 11/29/00 +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>A ruling on  Americans with Disabilities law (thanks for the link, William)
>stated is not enough to merely provided access, but the issue is rather the
>extent to which the communication is actually as effective as that provided
>to others.
>
>Now there may be a problem as to what is a reasonable accommodation.
>Wheelchair ramps are not easy or cheap and may bother the ascetics of the
>design of a staircase. Yet non-the less, they are doable, and are considered
>reasonable accommodations, by law.
>
>When people wish to keep the law with regard accessible web sites they look
>to WAI, and if something is at all reasonable, then we have a responsibility
>to tell them.
>
>Re: text in images. - important content that is not grafical in it
>functionality should not be in an image. Using CSS is no harder then
>installing a wheel chair ramp. with other images there is often no
>reasonable accommodation to be made. When there is (like when SVG becomes a
>reality) then we will recommend that too.
>
>Were there is a better known way to do something, then we must recommend it.
>
>
>Sorry.
>
>L
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
>Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett
>Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:38 AM
>To: William Loughborough; 'WAI-GL'
>Subject: Re: Kynn's Reply: Textual Images vs. Styled Text
>
>
>At 12:11 PM -0800 11/28/00, William Loughborough wrote:
>>At 02:29 PM 11/28/00 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>>>3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists
>>
>>In addition to "for example" and "avoid" you have to consider what
>>"exists" means.
>
>This is against
>
>>The use of image text is against the rules WCAG 1.0, the laws of the
>>State of Pennsylvania, and probably Oz and Canada and possibly
>>Portugal.
>
>It's an absurd "rule", as it favors one technique (outright banning
>of specific types of images) and ignores a bunch of realities, including:
>
>* The problem with magnifying text images also applies to magnifying
>   any other images that contain content; you may not be able to
>   adequately increase the size of an image of ANY kind.  If the
>   answer is to "ban it!" then the answer is clearly to ban all
>   images on the web entirely -- because there will likely be some
>   audience for whom they are too small.
>
>--Kynn
>--
>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
>http://www.kynn.com/
>
>
>
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 17:23:21 UTC