Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence (opens in new tab)

If it was a scan of an actual document embedded into a webpage, then maybe we can say it's an acceptable format. But having some designer do a layout and then save it as a rasterized image so that it scales beyond original size so that it lowers the legibility of the text, then no, it is not a reasonable method.

When you decide to use a non-default format you adopt all of the responsibility to make that work: How do I select text from this image to reference it in a discussion? How does my screen reader handle the information? Does this text scale and wrap if I need to zoom due to a visual impairment? Can I use a high readability font with this text? If I color invert my browser how readable is this text?

This whole thread is wildly off topic to the article but I really wish developers would think more thoroughly before rejecting standards and rolling their own.

> What does it really matter if they embed a legible image or use text?

It matters if you’re using a screen reader or browsing without downloading images due to limited bandwidth. Images also don’t resize text or change contrast to match my browser settings.

Yes, those images are not blurry, that's precisely the reason I described them as blurry. /s

If all you do is read things on a microscopic mobile screen, maybe the sizing didn't scale a raster image beyond it's native size. For those of us boomers that read things on screens with plenty of screen space, things get scaled with that fancy mobile first responsive layout so that images are scaled larger than their normal size.

So as soon as you're willing to accept that not everyone views the web like you, we can all have a better experience. That's not just for the web page's designer, but for other readers on forums making comments about things they don't know about.