RE: Comments from WiseWomen Mailing List on Textual Graphics

I have taken the liberty of reviewing and comment on the thoughtful
responses below.  yes, there may be grey areas, but rhe realm of opion is to
broad for our discussion.  Instead, we must deal in concrete realities and
functional solutions.
see my responses marked with dp below.
>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:39:06 -0700
>To: WiseWomen@chalcedony.com
>From: brig <brig@eatonweb.com>
>Subject: Re: [WW] Use of Textual Graphics on Web Pages

>a recent project of mine was the site for author graham joyce
(http://grahamjoyce.net), the site needed to both transmit the eerie
horror/dark fantasy style of his books and his personality. one of the
themes for his book covers was a smoke/mist effect and on 90% of them his
name was set in a specific font. carrying this brand/connection over from
his books was very important and was a very good reason to use graphical
text as opposed to html text.
>
>i also set the navigation in graphical text too, more for mouseovers than
anything else, but i wouldn't consider that a requirement. more a design
decision.
>
>brig
>
>please feel free to forward, reprint this message to other lists.
>
>--------------------------
>http://jungawunga.com/ - internet development studio
>http://eatonweb.com/ - weblog
dp what comes to mind here is that the web is not a book and that visual
presentation is all well and good but there is no reason why that cannot be
accompanied by something accessible.

Second response:

>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:45:30 -0700
>From: Robin Liston <rliston@home.com>
>Subject: Re: [WW] Use of Textual Graphics on Web Pages
>
>I use graphical text a lot because:
>
>1) The client usually has some text in his logo which absolutely must match
>his printed logo
>
>2) The chance that most web users will have fonts that I specify on their
>computers (other than arial/helevetica, times new roman, courier, and
>symbol) are pretty slim, therefore I must make a graphic out of that text.
>
>3) CSS is still too buggy for me. I only use CSS on Intranet sites or other
>sites where I have control on the browsers and fonts installed on each
>computer.
>
>4) I know people with older browsers can't see CSS formatted pages properly
>(if at all), I do know they can see graphical text or the ALT tags.
>
>5) Sometimes I need absolute control how much space "text" should take up.
>I then use graphical text.
>
>6) Sometimes the only graphics on the page are the graphical text nav
>buttons. Without the buttons the page would be too text heavy and too
boring.
>
>7) Maybe this has changed... but don't you need to use images (usually
>text/images nav buttons) for mouseovers/image swapping?
>
>9) Looking back on the sites I've done...  I've used graphical text on
>every one.
>
>
>You have my permission to forward this to the WAI.
dp nicely done.  I see nothing inherantly rong with the thinking here.  I
will be interested in the discussion.
 
Third response:

>From: "Rachel Hamilton-Williams" <rachel@katipo.co.nz>
>Organization: Katipo Communications
>To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>,
>         "WiseWomen List" <WiseWomen@chalcedony.com>
>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 17:48:55 +1200
>Subject: Re: [WW] Use of Textual Graphics on Web Pages
>
>Hi Kynn et al - you are welcome to pass this message on to whomever you
>think will find it interesting.
>
>
>Hmm - I had 2 thoughts here - first, yes on the subject of branding, using
>special fonts to reinforce/suport a brand can be important. On a "text
heavy"
>site the menu is an integral part of building a brand, and the fonts may
not be
>suitable to do as html text - some examples that come to mind are where
>italicised/writing style fonts are used - which look terrible/illegible
when done
>using a font/style tags because of the whole aliasing issue, or where the
font
>isn't available on all/most computers.
>
>An example of where the font "is* the brand  (not mine)
>http://www.rivertrout.com/main.html
>
>And another where a mix of html and graphic text has been used
>
>http://www.marine.mfe.govt.nz/
>
>On that one only the font in the logo, and the font that is italic in the
heading
>are graphics - the first because of the spacing and that it's a non
standard
>forn, and the second because italic html text looks illegible to even the
most
>able sighted.
>
>Other things that come to mind are where the "style" of the button (rather
>than just the text) is integral to the design. and may have been done to
ease
>navigation for say new users, or children, and the features of CSS are not
>enough to be able to produce that type of button.
>
>Example : http://hcl.katipo.co.nz/images/kids/rocket_angela.jpg
>
>  - is one that I'm not sure you could produce with CSS
>
>BTW - that is a demo page only - pre being made "real"
>
>I'm assuming that we are working from the assumption that CSS actually will
>work as advertised.
>
>Until they do I think that using CSS for this sort of "styling" is not
going to
>catch on, because for something as important as the navigation, most
>designers consider "close enough" not good enough.
>
>Cheers
>Rachel
>
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>Rachel Hamilton-Williams             Katipo Communications           
>WEBMISTRESS                          ph  025 300 825 or +64 04 389 1285
>mailto:rachel@katipo.co.nz           PO Box 7039, Wellington
>http://www.katipo.co.nz              New Zealand
dp I hope we get css fixed.
Fourth response:

>From: "Janis Joseph" <janis@atartecture.co.il>
>To: "WiseWomen List" <WiseWomen@chalcedony.com>
>Subject: Re: [WW] Use of Textual Graphics on Web Pages
>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:10:34 +0200
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
>
>>   >I'd really like to hear from graphical designers if there are
>cases where
>>   >branding requires non-standard fonts... instead of e.g. using a
>few small
>>   >images for logos, bullets, and other decorations.. or even having
>a large
>>   >image... and relying on text with a coordinated font and
>background color
>>   >for the rest of the page.
>>   >
>
>I am simultaneously a proponent of standards, and an opponent of blah,
>mainly text, graphicly boooooring pages. My first introduction to the
>web was via a unix server. Once I had access to the "real" Web,
>complete with all "bells and whistles", my Web use increased by
>magnitudes. (Though I routinely skip Flash intros...)
>
>Mouseovers have already been mentioned, and I'd like to reassert their
>usefulness, not only as eye-candy, but as an aid to navigation.
>
>I'd like to see the standards become "standard" enough to be easily
>implemented, but would hate to have them so draconian that aesthetic
>elements would have to be sacrificed. It would be at that point that
>I, as a developer, would go over to the "dark side" and say the h***
>with standards.
>
>(I'm still annoyed that even HTML 4.01 loose doesn't allow the use of
><leftMargin="0"  topMargin="0"  marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0">)

>I hereby grant explicit permission to use this message (and all my
>messages: past, present and future) for any and all purposes,
>including as t.p.  (I won't repeat this "release" this in any future
>message.)
>
>Regards,
>Janis
>A t a r T e c t u r e
>http://www.atartecture.co.il

dp good structure makes for good design. I hear and understand the
frustration.



-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
Accessibility Roundtable Web Broadcast           http://kynn.com/+on24
What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/

Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 09:40:28 UTC