W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Textual Images vs. Styled Text, Round Three *ding*

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:49:25 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 06:39 AM 9/29/2000 , Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>Kynn, your post below very lucidly highlights the significant accessibiltiy
>problems with textual images.  Yet I read your earlier messages on this
>thread as being something we should not worry about too much. 

I think on at least some of those message I noted that I was
arguing from a devil's advocacy position.

>Kynn, what is wrong with acknowledging that the bar for level AA compliance
>is, in fact, just as high as Len suggests?

When the bar is "stop using something useful and instead use
something that doesn't work", then the bar is not just "high",
it is misplaced entirely.  That _may_ be appropriate for a
priority 3 checkpoint, but as a priority 2 checkpoint it 
indicates that we (WAI) have to go back and do some work to
figure these things out better.

Unless you are arguing that "double-AA accessibility is an
undue burden on web designers?"

Keep in mind the implication of _that_ is that you're giving
various companies and organizations a "free pass" out of having
to implement any double-AA considerations, at least under US
law as I understand it.  :)  That's what it means if you say
"double-AA is hard and _should_ be hard to achieve" -- it means
that you are arguing the same as the IBM consultants who
testified in the Olympics hearing (and against Jutta).

I don't believe that the current WCAG checkpoint disallows
images-as-text.  I feel that as written, the requirements
("appropriate markup" to replace images) are not met, as current
styled text is not sufficient to replace image text.  Therefore
I feel that the bar for double-AA accessibility is at a correct
level, and I resist attempts to artificially raise that bar
based on the faulty assumption (which I have yet to be held by
any graphic artist) that styled text _is_ a replacement for
textual images.



>P.S.:  One other reason for avoiding textual images (and for using CSS) is
>that they look terrible in print.

This is a design issue and not an accessibility issue.  If
a designer is willing to have their graphics look poor when
printed, hey, more power to 'em.

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 Friday, 29 September 2000 13:22:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:35:57 UTC