- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:23:38 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > * Text inside GIFs. > A picture of text inside a GIF complete with alt > and title is accessible; the claimed drawbacks of > screen-magnification software are unfounded because only the The draw back is with respect to the font size accessibility options in the browser, not external magnifier software. IE, NS6/Mozilla, and, I think NS4, all have this feature. These browser font size overrides all scale the outlines. > * Images, complete with alt texts, sitting inside <hx> tags. Stalemate issue. Actually most of this is stalemate as it is the old structuralist/presentationalist argument. > Web designers take a dim view of accessibility because > accessibility advocates cling to primitive, outdated, and clearly HTML was designed to be deliberately less sophisticated than presentational tools (e.g. Acrobat) of its time. This attribute of HTML dates back to its origins - part of the confusion is that Netscape marketed successfully into the Acrobat market, and Adobe failed to spot the market. Netscape used HTML for this market because they had expertise from Mosaic, not because it was the best tool for the job. They knew the money was not in information distribution tools but in advertising tools. Advertising use of the web would have been much more honest if Adobe had added web linking before Netscape cornered the market, although the fact that you could hand code HTML more easily than PostScript/PDF, at the time, probably made a difference as well, as Adobe's business model was based on selling authoring tools, at a time when students were handcoding web pages with "free" editors.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 02:21:08 UTC