Re: Test cases for images of text.

At 05:14 PM 12/18/00 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>I'm not trying to be flippant

As a hearing officer of a federal agency who must decide these matters, I 
would rule that none of them would qualify. If they were to have the entire 
text as alt text (which is probably not allowed due to length) someone 
might appeal my decision and who knows what the appeals process would 
yield. If the "defendant" of the third one said she needed to use that 
effect because it reminds her clients not to opt for balloon payments or 
whatever, I'd still rule against her.

If I were a member of a Working Group discussing whether these items were 
acceptable as "image text" I would also rule against them.

That doesn't mean that some other example might not get my approval. We 
live in a "real" world wherein the examples that might be raised are 
infinite in number. On the whole, text image gives a "bad image" to the 
underlying notion of accessibility and is also a knock on ingenuity.

If the author of these had used the "last resort" of an alternative 
presentation then I guess these images would just be like pictures of 
anything else. If the material is available *readily* (whatever that means) 
then who am I to whine. In that case I would suppose the attribute for the 
image file would be alt="graphical presentation of the text found on our 
alternative site"

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 17:45:28 UTC