- From: Steve Carter <steve@juggler.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:39:30 -0000
- To: "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> I just began a thread on this and it is not the only site that has > implemented this. currently, there are two work arounds that do not > provide parity. Sorry for my ignorance, but what do you mean by 'provide parity' and how does this (the WAV and Phone option) not do it? > By the way, I believe that this violates the wcag by providing an image > with text in it only. I would like to flag up that this is a fundamental problem: The requirements for usability and security have intrinsic conflicting properties, not just in the web. Stadiums would be much more accessible if they had no walls but the security requirement states that you must only allow in ticket holders so they have doors and turnstiles. It would be much easier to type in passwords if the text were displayed as you type, but someone could see it over your shoulder... IMO the phrasing in that guideline is wrong if it says you shouldn't provide images that contain only text. A more correct guideline would say that all linguistic content must be provided in a machine-interpretable form. By linguistic I mean 'stuff in a language' so it covers written and spoken text. This clearly forbids a page to have only a set of .gifs for 'home' 'prev' 'next' but does not forbid the images themselves, as long as they are backed up with ALT attributes. If you feel this is getting off topic please feel free to mail me direct, regards, Steve
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 11:41:56 UTC