3 ms·
In an ideal world this wouldn't even be necessary. This just speaks to the sad state of image format adoption and workflows. Every browser supports basic SVG. S
by cooper12 10y ago
In an ideal world this wouldn't even be necessary. This just speaks to the sad state of image format adoption and workflows. Every browser supports basic SVG. SVG text can be read by screen readers, indexed by search engines, found in the page, copied, resized, machine-translated, and everything else you expect from text. Why are we still taking raster images of text? I think the onus should be on the OS and browsers to implement snipping tools that can save in SVG. Regardless I still think this is a cool project for making that lost information accessible.
- ue_ 10y agoAs much as I would like to have this, in addition to your point about browser support, there are reasons I can think of from the top of my head: There isn't widespread support in image editing programs to simply add text to a jpg/png/whatever, then save the result as an SVG. Most people don't see any motivation, as most people don't have a lot of text on images. A lot of images with text are screenshots or photographs, rather than with overlayed text. Upload services for images usually don't support SVG.
- cooper12 10y agoYeah unfortunately I have to agree that the workflow just isn't there yet. (definitely a chicken-egg aspect to it) I can kinda see why, editing SVGs is completely different from editing raster images. (the former is pretty much code) The only reason I can see why image hosts don't support uploading it is because SVG has had some security issues. (don't know if this is still a factor) As for your point about most images not being text, I agree, but SVG does support embedding raster images so it would only be a small cost that yields all the benefits mentioned.