RE: Request for site review

Thanks Marjolein,

I agree completely.  Nothing wrong with text in logos, mastheads, buttons,
etc.
I am even somewhat tolerant of them in headers and as drop caps.

I am not very happy with the language of my proposed new check point:

P1:  Don't use images for body text.

Care to help me improve it?  Is "body text" clear enough a term?

Just picking nits:
(1)  Is there really such a thing as "Web  Accessibility Initiative    (WAI)
logo" or is it just fancy lettering?  (And what's with the extra spaces in
the ALT tag?)
(2)  Could not the "WAI logo" be rendered with CSS?  If so, isn't this a P2
violation on the WAI home page?

Cheers,
Bruce


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marjolein Katsma [mailto:access@javawoman.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 5:27 AM
> To: Jonathan Chetwynd; Bruce Bailey; Web Accessibility Initiative
> Subject: Re: Request for site review
>
>
> These are two LOGOs - they just happen to consist of letters. The
> ALT attributes for both actually say they're logos. Both also
> contain more than just letters (lines).
>
> I don't see anything wrong with logos that happen to consist of
> letters - there are many. They're still logo's in the sense
> they're used as identification: they're there to be recognized,
> not "read".
>
> But presenting text that is meant to be _read_ (menus, body text,
> headers even) in the form of GIFs is another matter.
>
> IMO, of course.
>
> Cheers,
>
> At 08:49 2000-04-14 +0100, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
>> This is one I cannot seem to get my head around.
>>
>> How come the WAI homepage has 2 examples of GIF'd text right at
>> the top of the page?

Received on Friday, 14 April 2000 09:52:22 UTC