- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:57:50 -0800
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 08:37 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>what about our (apparent) consensus that logos should be exempt from the
>ban on images of text?
My "consensus" is actually that in the cases used as exemplars in "granting
that exception" the text wasn't *really* text in the sense of communicating
linguistics. "Text" in logos (I think the example was "Coca-Cola") was on
the whole thought to be "unimportant" or some such. In the jargon of the
Monica era it didn't rise to the level of "textness".
I don't think we really want to get into defining what a "logo" is (how
many pixels does it take to...?). Perhaps we can issue a "commonsense"
approach to defining what we mean by "image text" - but I'm not taking such
an action item. I'm like the Supreme Court justice [speaking of
pornography]: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it!"
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2000 08:58:26 UTC