W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: WA - background-image in CSS

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:44:34 -0800
Message-ID: <3C48EBA2.4050404@munat.com>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> Oh no!  I am such a Nazi!

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Kynn. Everyone makes mistakes.

I'm trying to figure out if you are deliberately misunderstanding my 
point, or if you really don't get it.

The point I was making is that virtually everything on a page conveys 
information. We need to consider what information is being conveyed, and 
then try to ensure that everyone gets that same information.

Some information is clearly pertinent, other information isn't. But 
you've turned this into something ridiculous.

Take your image example. You claim that the non-visual user can't tell 
the height and width of the picture, but the visual user can. Since this 
is clearly information available to one user, then it should be 
available to all. This is your interpretation of my point, is it not?

Nonsense. That is not what I am saying at all. You might want to take 
your own advice and read a bit more carefully.

The issue is, *Why* is this image on the page? I really doubt that the 
image is on the page because it is 200 pixels high and 150 pixels wide. 
This information is *incidental*. If anyone really wants it, he can look 
at the code.

And there are background images, like the one on Ineke's site (which I 
used as an example), that convey no information other than to focus the 
user's attention on the first read, for example. This would be 
reproduced automatically by a screen reader.

But as Jon Hanna pointed out, an elder tree background image may convey 
all sorts of meaning. In this instance, perhaps some sort of description 
*is* necessary.

As for all your ranting about Nazis and bigots, you are confusing two 
separate issues. My example of segregation was a response to a comment 
which seemed to say that the author of a page has a right to decide who 
gets what content and to serve unequal content (not different content) 
to groups based on their disabilities. My example was restricted to that 
instance, and does not apply across the board.

Again, you've created a straw man, and not a very good one.

Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 22:43:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:07 UTC