Re: Yahoogroups and blind users - sorry for being a bit off topi c

> 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