<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Accessible Web Design</title>
	<atom:link href="http://accessibleweb.eu/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://accessibleweb.eu</link>
	<description>design, build, test and consultancy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:18:27 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Why WCAG 2.0 Encourages Use of Images to Replace Text by dani</title>
		<link>http://accessibleweb.eu/2010/05/why-wcag-2-0-encourages-use-of-images-to-replace-text/comment-page-1/#comment-59</link>
		<dc:creator>dani</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://accessibleweb.eu/?p=135#comment-59</guid>
		<description>Richard,
That WCAG 2.0 checkpoint is acceptable. In special case, I think, users with cognitive disabilities are more easy to learn education comic-style rather than full text page.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard,<br />
That WCAG 2.0 checkpoint is acceptable. In special case, I think, users with cognitive disabilities are more easy to learn education comic-style rather than full text page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why WCAG 2.0 Encourages Use of Images to Replace Text by Richard</title>
		<link>http://accessibleweb.eu/2010/05/why-wcag-2-0-encourages-use-of-images-to-replace-text/comment-page-1/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:55:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://accessibleweb.eu/?p=135#comment-55</guid>
		<description>What I am trying to say is that WCAG2 is wrongly encouraging use of images of text. It is doing this passively rather than actively. By allowing too many exceptions it is far too easy to ignore this checkpoint for the wrong reasons. I prefer antialiased text but I wouldn&#039;t be justified in replacing text with an image of it purely because I could then guarantee it would appear the same in all browsers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I am trying to say is that WCAG2 is wrongly encouraging use of images of text. It is doing this passively rather than actively. By allowing too many exceptions it is far too easy to ignore this checkpoint for the wrong reasons. I prefer antialiased text but I wouldn&#8217;t be justified in replacing text with an image of it purely because I could then guarantee it would appear the same in all browsers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why WCAG 2.0 Encourages Use of Images to Replace Text by Sharron Rush</title>
		<link>http://accessibleweb.eu/2010/05/why-wcag-2-0-encourages-use-of-images-to-replace-text/comment-page-1/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharron Rush</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 May 2010 19:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://accessibleweb.eu/?p=135#comment-54</guid>
		<description>I agree with your central point.  If I understand correctly, you are saying that this is mostly a redundant checkpoint that is seldom used because &quot;essential&quot; is difficult to measure.  But I am not sure I would take the next step, that WCAG2 &quot;encourages&quot; the use of images of text.   There is still a trade off here.  

People with low vision, for example, comprise a large percentage of people with visual impairments.  While equivalent alt text is an elegant solution for blind users, mobile users and others who entirely remove or bypass images, for those with low vision there can still be issues with images of text.  I believe the intent of this checkpoint is just that - a checkpoint,  an invitation to consider that text is still the most easily personalized and reconfigured means to convey information.  There are, as you noted, some good reasons to choose images over text, but I guess I would say that if WCAG2 is encouraging anything it is to think twice about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with your central point.  If I understand correctly, you are saying that this is mostly a redundant checkpoint that is seldom used because &#8220;essential&#8221; is difficult to measure.  But I am not sure I would take the next step, that WCAG2 &#8220;encourages&#8221; the use of images of text.   There is still a trade off here.  </p>
<p>People with low vision, for example, comprise a large percentage of people with visual impairments.  While equivalent alt text is an elegant solution for blind users, mobile users and others who entirely remove or bypass images, for those with low vision there can still be issues with images of text.  I believe the intent of this checkpoint is just that &#8211; a checkpoint,  an invitation to consider that text is still the most easily personalized and reconfigured means to convey information.  There are, as you noted, some good reasons to choose images over text, but I guess I would say that if WCAG2 is encouraging anything it is to think twice about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why WCAG 2.0 Encourages Use of Images to Replace Text by Tweets that mention Why WCAG 2.0 Encourages Use of Images to Replace Text &#124; Accessible Web Design -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://accessibleweb.eu/2010/05/why-wcag-2-0-encourages-use-of-images-to-replace-text/comment-page-1/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Why WCAG 2.0 Encourages Use of Images to Replace Text &#124; Accessible Web Design -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 13:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://accessibleweb.eu/?p=135#comment-52</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Richard Conyard and Dick Morton, Webteam. Webteam said: RT @accessibleweb: Why WCAG 2.0 Encourages Use of Images to Replace Text http://bit.ly/bLkydb Please Retweet [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Richard Conyard and Dick Morton, Webteam. Webteam said: RT @accessibleweb: Why WCAG 2.0 Encourages Use of Images to Replace Text <a href="http://bit.ly/bLkydb" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/bLkydb</a> Please Retweet [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hosting Uptime Guarantees &#8211; Are They Worth the Paper They Aren&#8217;t Printed on? by Tweets that mention Hosting Uptime Guarantees – Are They Worth the Paper They Aren’t Printed on? &#124; Accessible Web Design -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://accessibleweb.eu/2010/05/hosting-uptime-guarantees-are-they-worth-the-paper-they-arent-printed-on/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Hosting Uptime Guarantees – Are They Worth the Paper They Aren’t Printed on? &#124; Accessible Web Design -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 19:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://accessibleweb.eu/?p=130#comment-50</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by zoe brown and Rick Wezenaar, Lisa T. Richardson. Lisa T. Richardson said: [Good to think about!] RT @accessibleweb: Is a web hosting uptime guarantee worth anything http://bit.ly/hostuptime [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by zoe brown and Rick Wezenaar, Lisa T. Richardson. Lisa T. Richardson said: [Good to think about!] RT @accessibleweb: Is a web hosting uptime guarantee worth anything <a href="http://bit.ly/hostuptime" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/hostuptime</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
