- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:04:32 -0400
- To: "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anne Pemberton [snip] > I fail to see any reason not to use word art if the words > it contains are put in an alt tag. The ALT content is sufficient for folks who use screen readers. It is wholly unsatisfactory for many persons with low vision. There has been much exposition (in related threads) as to why non-scalable word art is a real obstacle. Kynn, IMHO, gave the most succinct explanation -- which one can find archived at URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2000JulSep/0555.html I still remain quite perplexed by Kynn's (and others) reluctance to acknowledge that this barrier rises to the level of being a P2 issue. From the WCAG: <blockquote> [Priority 2] A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant barriers to accessing Web documents. </blockquote> Why are we debating this? It seems black and white to me, but the popular response has been to suggest changing the guidelines rather than facing up to and acknowledging the problem. Are we really that afraid of the implications? The response I expected was more to the effect: "Thanks for pointing this out Len. Those of us claiming AA better check our sites!"
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 11:05:24 UTC