W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Guide to Guidelines

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:37:39 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), Lila Laux <llaux@uswest.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Myself, I liked very much William's site that included graphics. The result
is a much more inviting presentation. The criticism of the animated
graphics as a "bad idea" is misplaced. The first time I viewed the page, I
didn't even notice there was animation until I had gone through the whole
page and returned to the top to look it over a second time noting the
details including the animation. Not all people, and not even all "visual"
people, are "distracted" by animation. Motion is a part of life. Compared
to the original, all text, no color, no graphics presentation, this version
is very inviting and gives the impression that accessibility is do-able
without throwing away the baby with the bath water. 


At 09:01 PM 9/11/2000 -0700, William Loughborough wrote:
>LL:: [referencing http://rdf.pair.com/guide.htm ] ...the animated graphics 
>are a bad idea from a pure human factors perspective - they
>are irritating and draw attention away from the information on the page 
>(it's hard for people to keep their attention from being drawn to something 
>WL: About my only "excuse" (rationalization?) for using the animated icons 
>is to illustrate by example that their inclusion: a) doesn't break the 
>guidelines; b) that the guidelines don't preclude use of absurd gimmicks.

Anne L. Pemberton
Enabling Support Foundation
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 07:32:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:33 UTC