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

> From:	Bailey, Bruce [SMTP:Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov]
> 
> I remain very perplexed as to the resistance Len's observation on this
> checkpoint is facing.  I fail to see how you can argue that CSS is not "an
> appropriate markup language" when style sheets are explicitly mentioned in
> 
	[DJW:]  I tend to agree with you, and wish the author of
	the guidelines would clarify them.

	I think that Kynn is taking it as an axiom that priority
	2 compliance should be possible without compromising the
	"artistic" control of the design, which I question.

	He is also assuming that commercial designers would be
	forced to compromise their "artistic" control if they 
	were not allowed text as graphics (and maybe some other loose
	interpretations of priority 2 items), which I think is a 
	correct reflection of the commercial web design market 
	place (which is often copied by people dealing in accessible 
	information, as they assume that is the only way of 
	doing things).

	This logic, combined with subjective wording in the 
	guidelines, leads to the conclusion that text as graphics
	must be permitted at priority 2, as, otherwise, the 
	initial axiom would be violated.

	By "artistic" I'm not referring to the wordsmithing of 
	novelists but to graphic, layout, background music, etc.,
	design designed to have an emotional impact on the consumer,
	sometimes to distract them from the lack of real content,
	and create a distinctive house style for the company.

	Examples of conflicts would be reqirements to have a colour
	gradient across individual characters or to use a font that 
	could not legally be embedded (but which might tbe company's 
	corporate house style font).

Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 13:33:11 UTC