- From: Steven Dale <sdale@stevendale.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 03:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
LOL I know that feeling about being attacked by both sides. I mean the image degrades when blown up at about 5x on magnifiers. I think images are good also though, For cognitive problems, icons are much easier to deal with then text. I just think if you have images with text in them, the text should be accessible. One example I can come up with quickly is the copying of text into a reader such as Readplease -Steve David Woolley said: > >> If it is blurred at its intended size, zooming in will only make it >> worse. > > It is not a fault for raster image text to be blurred at its intended > resolution; it is how dot matric characters can work at all without > looking pixellated. In fact, anti-aliasing is itself a blurring > (low pass spatial filter, operation, and that is generally considered > desirable). My argument is that oversized pixellated images, when > blurred to the same relative level are no less readable than would be > the intended size viewed by someone with good vision. > > There may be issues that the perception process for large print is > fundamentally different, e.g. because the whole image cannot be on the > fovea at the same time, and because non-integral scaling factors do > introduce artifacts. > > Interestingly, I'm getting attacked from both sides here, as someone > else is suggesting that I'm totally against text as images (I do > tbink that most web use of them is misuse of the technology - it needs a > powerful graphics language, not a back with bitmaps, to do it > properly - so that the text is really there but transformed in the user > agent).
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 03:29:40 UTC