- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:02:02 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 08/03/2023 16:56, Bristow, Alan wrote: > 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? Purely my person opinion here, so take it with a pinch of salt... 1.4.5 was a cute little aspirational SC trying to nudge authors away from doing things like "fancy headings done as images because they want to use this special font", "navigation bars where every link is a little graphic so it can have embossed characters, a drop shadow, desert chrome effect or whatever". Even for that, the wording in the understanding for 1.4.5 is actually quite wishy washy "The intent of this Success Criterion is to encourage authors..." Encourage, eh? It also has this escape hatch: "Images of text may also be used in order to use a particular font that is either not widely deployed or which the author doesn't have the right to redistribute, or to ensure that the text would be anti-aliased on all user agents." Nowadays, while yes it is *technically* possible to recreate most laid-out/fancy infographics, or the classic "product show with extra text laid over it with the product name, price, etc" you'd get on some shopping sites, using SVG...the effort to do that is often disproportionately higher, and just not realistic for certain sites (e.g. a marketing site built with a big CMS, where the person updating the actual content has no graphic design and SVG coding skills - they can only upload an image for a post/product, can't upload SVGs, and wouldn't be able to create SVGs themselves anyway). In those common scenarios, it feels very tight failing a site for not using something like SVG... Long story short: I'm often likely far more lenient that I should be when it comes to 1.4.5. I may fail it as a very low priority issue, with the understanding that my clients are unlikely to spend any time actually trying to tackle it. However, I *think* you've slightly misread/misinterpreted what technique G140 is saying? It's not about "using an image with text, but passing 1.4.5 because you double-up and also have the same info as text", like you seem to imply? It's noted as a technique for 1.4.5 for doing something like "put the large background of your infographic in the background using CSS, and then put the text of the infographic over it using semantic markup, rather than having it baked into the image". So there's no tension between the two solutions / techniques you mention, because they both drive to the same conclusion? Regardless though, there is an argument that if you have the exact same information that's currently locked up in an image with text also available right there on the same page as actual HTML text, then this wouldn't necessarily fail 1.4.5, because then the image with text is just an alternative representation of the information that's there in HTML...so you wouldn't fail? -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2023 19:02:18 UTC