Re: alt text & punctuation - best practice?

The happy middle ground is to put the text somewhere else.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
To: <sdale@stevendale.com>; <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:20 AM
Subject: RE: alt text & punctuation - best practice?



I'm now very confused.  Then again, maybe I have been all my life.  If the
alt attribute contains the same text as an image, is the image/text
considered accessible?  Can magnifiers enlarge tool tips?  What magnifiers
should I install to test with?  Assuming images are used, where is the happy
middle place that satisfies the needs of as many as possible?

Still trying to understand how to do the right thing when it comes to images
with text...

Kurt Mattes
Application Development Analyst
Technical Lead - Web Accessibility
[302] 282-1414 * Kurt_Mattes@BankOne.com


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Steven Dale
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:29 AM
To: david@djwhome.demon.co.uk
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: alt text & punctuation - best practice?



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).





**********************************************************************
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any
reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission
in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you
**********************************************************************

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 08:40:54 UTC