RE: 19 October 2000 minutes

I very much regret not being able to make this call.
(1)  Are we agreed that graphical text in navigation elements is a
significant barrier to many folks with low vision?
(2)  Do we agree that the artistic license that should be extended to logos
and banners (even when they are links) is very much greater than what is
warranted by image maps and detailed navigation elements?

> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> Errata to 3.1
> CS As long as not a paragraph.
> CMN Problem for magnifiers.
> WC Can use Opera to magnify the alt-text of images.
> CS Section headings are usually large fonts.
> WC Text in images to create logos? Does anyone disagree?
> CMN I am not convinced.
> JW One could avoid the implication that you can interpret to 
> mean it does 
> not exclude every image.
> GV If you can't do something so it will work with the 
> browsers on your 
> site, does 3.1 say "it doesn't matter, AA means you must use 
> markup language."
> JW Did we add into the Errata, Ian's proposal in 11.1? That 
> would take care 
> of it.
> WC No.
> CMN It rules out things that can be done using images that 
> should be done 
> in markup. Use MathML to represent math. What can't be done 
> using markup? 
> You don't have strong control over button appearance - how 
> good is css support?
> WC /* restate my proposal */
> KB Does proposal cover WAI logo?
> WC Yes.Let's keep checkpoint as is, but write a clarification 
> that image ok 
> for logo, navigation buttons, image maps.
> GV "until widely supported" - what if 2/3 of browsers support 
> it. Does that 
> mean we switch? We have a question for how long it is that people are 
> required to do things.
> WC Since 1.0 errata, i think we can use the until user agent language 
> because 2.0 should be out before until user agent is met.
> JW Don't think resolve in 1.0 w/errata change, therefore "when an 
> appropriate markup language exists" means "when supported by 
> user agents."
> MM: A lot of companies won't want to put SVG out for public 
> consumption. 
> Once it's out there it can be stolen. A lot of companies use 
> graphical 
> content to protect info so that things can't be perfectly 
> copied. Would 
> people want to adopt SVG?
> CMN I don't think that holds. If someone puts an imperfect 
> logo out there 
> is making that logo available whether it is SVG, or gif, or whatever.
> GR A legal issue.
> CS What about the word "appropriate." What CMN finds appropriate is 
> different than what a legal person finds appropriate.
> KB I think most people will want to do specific things that 
> CSS and HTML 
> will not be acceptable solutions. MathML is not acceptable. There are 
> things you can't do.
> GV Will be a list or tie back to 11 - where possible to do 
> that using xyz 
> then you must. The word appropriate is vague. It is not from 
> the rule but 
> the explanatory text underneath it.
> CMN The alternative interpretation is for cases where CSS 
> works on Netscape 
> and Explorer etc. then the answer is to apply 11.4 and supply 
> 2 versions. 
> That clearly meets the guidelines as written.
> Action WC: rework proposal for checkpoint 3.1.
[snip]

Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 09:32:34 UTC