Is semantic HTML equivalent alongside an image of text, OK, bad, or fail of SC 1.4.5 Images of Text

Hi,

For an infographic, how would people characterize:

- using an image of text but passing SC 1.4.5 "Images of Text" by the use of an accompanying semantic HTML text equivalent, i.e. meeting ST G140 (one of SC 1.4.5's STs)

versus

- no image of text (or text equivalent) and the use CSS instead (assuming the CSS was carefully designed to be excellent, responsive, etc)?

For example, is the former greatly frowned upon, entirely against the spirit of 1.4.5, but ultimately does not fail since it meets ST G140, and the latter the entire reason 1.4.5 was introduced and should always be used if at all possible?

Or is the former not quite as good but perfectly OK and this is not much of an issue?

Thanks for any comments.


Regards,

Alan
. . . . -   . . - - -
Alan Bristow ( he / him / il )
Web Developer / Développeur Web
Elections Canada / Élections Canada
alan.bristow@elections.ca<mailto:alan.bristow@elections.ca>