- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:57:11 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> And in the interim we should...? There are millions of ads on the web **** that use images. Are you suggesting all of these should be eliminated? As a web page user, I would be glad not to have the ads. However, if I am a bit more realistic, I realise that the editorial only exists because it is paid for by the ads. Personally, if an advertiser fails to reach his audience because he fails to use text, It doesn't worry me. For me, ads on web pages are for the benefit of the content provider, not the audience. Note that Google adverts have traditionally been text only, although I believe they now allow some images. It was certainly clear to me that the version one guidelines aimed towards the elimination of text as images, although this was qualified by a temporary permission. The aim of downloadable fonts was to reduce the need for text as images, but, of course, pages are designed for primarily visual use, and just using fonts would make page styles too alike for the designers. Text as images is almost always logically styling and should not be done in the HTML if you really buy the separation of form from content. (There are some, relatively rare cases, where the document wants to represent a languague script (including maths) for which the recipient's browser doesn't have proper support (e.g. providing the Chinese characters of a hotel's address for Western visitors, to show to a taxi driver - they don't need to be able to read it themselves).
Received on Monday, 21 June 2004 17:17:58 UTC