I’m a little behind on my reading (and posting) but work has been busy and taking time off for SXSW didn’t help things. I found myself reading the February issue of How while I ate my lunch today. February was the issue on typography. I was surprised to find an article on web typography but even more surprised by what it wrote:

Of course, you can create text as a graphic using any font in your arsenal. The drawbacks to this tactic are that it’s not easily changed later, it can’t be copied and pasted with other text on a page, it doesn’t scale in size when the user chooses a different default font size for the browser, and it’s not accessible to people with visual impairments who use text-speaking devices. The benefit, however, is that the text you create in Photoshop appears exactly as you want it to appear, with your font of choice and any graphic effects or other visual stylings.

Now, there was a little bit of FUD there about the screen readers (text-speaking devices). If you provide the text in an alt attribute for the image it will be perfectly accessible. However, I found it amazing that a magazine for designers, primarily print designers, would be so astute as to point out all of the failings of using images for text.

Later in the article was another paragraph, this one about Flash:

When designing Flash projects, most of the same typographical rules mentioned above still apply; you’re simply gaining the freedom to use whatever font you like. However, Flash isn’t nearly as accessible as HTML, and certainly not as flexible as CSS if you want to change the appearance. Frankly, waiting for Flash animations to load can be annoying to site users, even those with broadband internet connections.

Steering designers away from Flash because of accessibility and load times? I’m not religious but Hallelujah! I take this article as a sign of the maturity of the online design community, our tools and our pool of knowledge. We’ve come a long way in the last 10 years and pieces like this give me hope for the next 10.