Re: interesting one for text equivalence

At 9:56 AM +0200 1/2/01, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>Hears an interesting one for text equivalence,
>
>I put up a logo on my site using CSS, I made the CSS layer 
>background the image (so it is CSS generated content) but the text 
>is just CSS formatted text.
>
>Do I need a text equivalent for the logo image?

Nope.  Assuming that the CSS background is "pure presentation" and doesn't
convey any information which could be included but isn't.  (The lack of
longdescs for such background images -- indeed, all background images
-- is a bit bothersome, though.)

Question:  Some sites might use a logo as a background image, perhaps
lightly tiled, perhaps large and centered as a watermark using CSS.
Is it necessary to include some notation of this, and if so, what is
the best way to do it?  Some content/meaning _is_ conveyed through
this CSS, but it may not be something which is worth capturing in
markup.  A longdesc or the equivalent -may- prove useful to blind
users who are communicating with non-blind users, but only to a
limited extent.

Should I have some sort of description on my page (kynn.com) of the
graphical/visual elements of the page, for the benefit of those who
cannot see the CSS?  (This isn't a specious question; I choose my
CSS colors deliberately and seasonally, and there's no other non-
graphical clues to say "this is a christmas design" or "this is an
aubergine design" or "this is an autumn design" without seeing the
page itself in a CSS browser.)

(I suspect the answer is "no, you don't have to" but it might be
useful, perhaps even just with CSS comments.)

--Kynn
-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/

Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 03:45:03 UTC