Re: Textual Images vs. Styled Text, Round Two *ding*

At 02:58 PM 9/27/2000 , William Loughborough wrote:
>At 12:01 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>However, it is important to recognize that HTML + CSS is _not_ a workable general replacement for images as text.
>Nor is "image as text" a workable replacement for "text as text".

Apples, oranges, William.

>At some point in the so-called "design process" that text that became "image-text" was actual "text - text". Just as the PDF text or table was once not a "scanned-type" of text. The proportion of today's text that is not at some point in its career in digital (dare I even say it "ascii") form is miniscule. I don't know why "image text" is any different than any other image in requiring a text equivalent? In short I think this is already covered early in the guidelines.

I think you may be missing the point -- the discussion has not been
about "should image text require a text equivalent", it was "should
image text be thrown out entirely for double-A compliance".

>Let me repeat "image-text is in fact image". 

I don't think anyone is claiming it's not, so I'm not sure you need
to make this point so forcefully. :)  However, I think you may have
missed _my_ point, because your response doesn't really address it...

-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
Accessibility Roundtable Web Broadcast           http://kynn.com/+on24
What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2000 18:07:59 UTC