- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:53:48 -0700
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 11:07 AM +1100 10/25/00, Jason White wrote: >Thus I have argued, first, that the use of text in images may or may not >constitute an access problem. Where it does, there are various options >available (more so in newer markup languages than in HTML 3.2 for example) >which enable the access difficulty to be overcome. Which solution is used >will depend on the objectives of the content developer and the extent to >which backward compatibility is regarded as essential. Is there any reason >why the guidelines should prescribe one solution over the others, given >that they are all acceptable from the access standpoint? Jason, I think this is a good point. I am worried that if we fixate on a solution which says "THOU MUST USE CSS+TEXT" (even with a caveat of "...or SVG!" at the end), that we are going to be dictating specific techniques which may not meet everyone's needs. --Kynn PS: Access to "inaccessible" navigation links can be improved by using a set of text links at the bottom of the page -- that's a solution which you didn't mention, but which meets all the of the needs expressed so far and doesn't necessitate us telling someone "take out the things we don't like, they are BAD" but instead we say "use them, but add something which is GOOD". I _always_ prefer the latter approach, and I think many other people do too! (I'm not saying Jason, in particular, does or does not like any specific technique, just using his message as a springboard to state this idea.) -- -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2000 20:57:26 UTC