- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:21:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
- cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Dave, I take your point about the heavy pixellation being a possible benefit for some users. Further in the document we actually show a stylesheet that is designed to give a similar effect - emphasise the outlines of an image. Some SVG images can be bloated, but in the examples I have played with they are generally comparable in size to raster formats (which are normally compressed). Thanks for the comments - please keep them coming <grin/> cheers Charles On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Dave J Woolley wrote: I'm going to comment on this document in several parts.... The case for image scaling being a benefit is flawed. A larger image in itself will improve readability, but not because of greater detail, but rather because it allows someone with poor eyesight to see the same level of detail as someone with good vision would see on a smaller image. In fact, if I look at figure 1.1 without my glasses, the pixellated image is easier to see than the detailed image, because the pixellation results in heavy black outlines. Image scaling can improve readability of technical diagrams for all users. In principle, vector formats can reduce the volume of transmitted data and therefore improve accessibility to people who can't afford high bandwidth connections, however, there have been requests for data compression on the SVG list, suggesting that real life SVG is fairly bloated. -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Friday, 21 July 2000 00:21:49 UTC