- From: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:38:38 +0100
- To: "'P.H.Lauke'" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
As far as I know most modern browsers have Unicode support which means that language packs are not needed to do this. Tom -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of P.H.Lauke Sent: 29 September 2003 10:26 To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none> If I understand the issue correctly, the advantage of using graphics in this context would be that you could have a visual representation of the language name using the language's respective font...otherwise people would need to have all possible language packs installed to view it correctly. Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: jon@spin.ie [mailto:jon@spin.ie] > Sent: 29 September 2003 11:12 > To: alicia.chin@families.qld.gov.au; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: Re: [w3c-wai-ig] <none> > > > > > Instead of using flags and thus raising questions on which > flag to use, how > > about having images of the language written in their own > script such as > > French as "Francais" (with alt tags on the image > to label the image > > i.e. > > alt="Arabic" .. etc) that the native speakers > themselves will > > easily > > recognise? > > Text in images has many well-known accessibility issues, and > adds nothing. Just use the text. > > > > >
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 05:39:21 UTC