W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: anne's first G3 mockup

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:05:01 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

	I have re-read your post, all of it this time. If you looked at the
version made in publisher, you looked at the very first version and haven't
seen any of the changes or improvements since. It was/is not my intention
at this point to create a page that is usable by all, but to explore how to
illustrate the guidelines and develop graphics that enhance and make the
guidelines more understandable.

	You may want to take another look at where I am now with this.

   To that end, the graphics are basically pictures of a web page layout,
showing the placement of titles, subtitles, headings, and marked up text as
well as illustrations and sound files. In the most recent version, these
graphics have been reduced to 25% to make a placeholder on the page, and
the users clicks on the illustration to study it. Studying it this morning,
I don't like the reduction because the illustrations aren't very useful at
this size, so I may experiment further with them. 

	As for the use of Publisher, I frequently use Publisher to layout pages
that will use a lot of graphics or visual elements. Publisher lets you
create a graphic from the componants, and then you can save as html, and
reduce the whole piece to a single graphic. When I use Publisher to make
pages, it is usually, as in this instance, used to make my early versions,
and when I'm ready to make it into the real web page, I move to Front Page
and wrangle the limited graphic capabilities there. 

	Incidently, no matter what the history or purpose of Publisher, I find it
one of the most used programs on my system. It's made everything from
family Christmas gifts, to bulletin boards for school, to the pages on my
personal page which are too heavy graphically to be done in Front page. I
try to use my best tool for the job without chasing down new software all
the time. 

	To help you understand the graphics: The first graphic, for 3.1, is
different from the others in that it shows a set of web pages with
consistent layout. On the full sized graphic, you can see the individual
componants on the first, middle and last pages, but on the small version
you basically see the consistency illustrated.

	Graphics for 3.2 and a few more are a picture of a layed-out web pages
that shows boxes for the various parts of the page. The graphic for 3.2 is
the basic Titled page. At the top of the page is the title presumably
properly marked up as an Hn element. Under it is a section for site/page
controls, to turn off anything that moves, the background music, etc. Under
the coltrols, the page uses two columns, the left side include: the topical
illustration, space for related sound files, space for a key idea, the site
map, space for another key idea. The main column begins with space for
opening illustrations, followed by a text box for properly marked heading
and marked up text. Under that is another spave for illustration, followed
by another text box, followed by a final illustration space. At the bottom
of the page, there is a space for credits on the page (may be text, icons
for compliance, etc. Below the credits are standard navigation controls for
last, home, and next. 

	After the graphics are judged to be useful and any changes have been
incorporated to carry the message of what a web page should contain, there
will be time to develop illustrative alt text and long descriptions. But
there isn't much sense doing all that work now, until I find out if I'm at
least on the right track ...




At 09:27 PM 4/19/01 -0400, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>  this is from 12 april 2001 -- it failed to slip the surly  bonds of my
>system, and from the mail archive, it is clear both that (a) anne  has
>continued to work on her G3 mockup, and (b) the issues raised below  still
>  so, while my comments are based on  earlier
>  note as
>well that, save for spacer images and what serves as  a pseudo-header for the
>page, i have inserted placeholder ALT text, as i have  no idea what the
>graphics contain, nor could the sighted individual who told  me that the
>image used as a pseudo-header is an image of text adequately  encapsulate the
>contents of the graphics ("i don't even know where to  begin.." was all i
>could elicit)
>--- Begin Resend  ---
>aloha, anne!
>as we've discussed in the past, simply because a site  is intended for use by
>those who are classified as "non-readers" or "readers  who need supplemental
>graphical/iconic information in order to contextualize  and understand
>content", doesn't mean that one should:
>a) use invalid  markup -- ALT, after all, is a REQUIRED attribute of HTML in
>its most current  iteration; simply declaring a legacy DTD in one's document
>(or allowing one's  authoring tool to do so) doesn't exempt one from the
>obligation to provide  alternative content for
>modality specific information
>or, b)  selectively implement WCAG
>i have absolutely no objection to
>the use  of graphics, icons, or visual cues -- in fact, as someone who was
>fully  sighted for 20 years before losing his vision, i appreciate the value
>of a  good illustration, graphic, or icon -- but that does not exempt one
>from the  obligation to ensure that one's pages aren't usable in a single
>modality,  and, anne, your mockup is only usable in a single modality...
>part of the  reason may be your use of Publisher as a web authoring tool--it
>is my  understanding that Publisher is primarily intended as a desktop
>publishing  tool into which a "save as HTML" or "save to Web" functionality
>was added at  the request of users who wanted to replicate materials they had
>  and, unless things have changed since  i
>investigated Publisher for the AU WG a year ago, it does a pretty poor  job
>of converting to HTML because the "save as HTML" option was perceived  by
>Publishers' developers as an add-on intended solely for the convenience  of
>Publisher users, and not in order to transform Publisher into a  dedicated
>  note: i am not trashing Publisher, but  merely
>pointing out that it isn't the optimal developmental environment for  web
>content--it is a desktop publishing environment, which means that it is  so
>intensely WYSIWYG-oriented that, at least in the version i played with,  it
>turned actual text into graphics of text in order to preserve text  flows
>around inline graphical objects, with the inevitable result that when  one
>simply increased the font size, the text-flow completely breaks down, not  to
>  in  the
>desktop publishing environment, the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you  get)
>concept can actually work--providing the author with  a
>reasonably-to-extremely accurate (depending upon the hardware and  software
>the author is running) portrayal of what will result from the  issuance of a
>  and, of course, unlike the web, once it  is printed, it
>would look the same in bangkok as it does in birmingham or in  benin--which
>can't be said for the electronic version of the  document...
>perusing the document source underlying your markup reminded  me of a
>scenario brought to the attention of the User Agent WG by denis  anson,
>who described the case of an individual with a form of brain damage  that
>caused a sensory overload, thereby opening a perceptual black hole,  which
>  to
>illustrate the problem encountered by this individual, denis  used the
>example of a poker game--apparently, this individual was a hell of a  five
>card stud player, but if he attempted to play poker with more  than
>five cards in his hand, he lost the ability to process the contents  of
>  the end result was a request for  a
>browser setting which would allow a user to toggle the rendering  of
>images on and off on a per-image basis so that a graphics heavy page  (or
>one on which graphics have been extensively used to illustrate  concepts)
>need not cause a sensory overload that makes the contents of the  page
>completely inaccessible...
>  because it  illustrates the point that there are no
>  graphics without textual equivalents
>are not a solution  for all users with cognative disabilities--while some
>need graphical  reinforcement of concepts conveyed primarily through text,
>some need textual  descriptions of a graphical object in order to decide
>whether or not to  toggle rendering of the image on...
>the bottom line is, no matter whom  your target audience may be, there is
>no excuse for not applying all of WCAG  to your document source, which
>means (a) validating your markup, and (b)  providing textual equivalents
>for graphical information, especially when  graphics are used to convey
>information not contained textually in the body  of the document, is
>necessary, even if you are personally convinced that in  ninety-nine per
>cent of all cases, end users of your content will not only  have image
>loading turned on, but are capable of perceiving graphical  content...
>all that being said, i have deconstructed your mockup and  attached it to
>this emessage--following my signature, i have also read into  this post a
>Lynx-generated text-image of your original page and my  rudimentary ER
>--- Lynx Text Image of Anne's  Original G3 mockup ---
>    [INLINE]
>                       3.1 Use consistent presentation.
>   [INLINE]
>    [INLINE]
>   [INLINE]
>   [INLINE]
>    3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation, positioning, and  labels.
>   [INLINE]
>   [INLINE]
>    [INLINE]
>   [1][USEMAP]
>--- Lynx Text Image of GJR's Quick  Corrections to Anne's G3 Mockup ---
>   Guideline  3
>                       3.1 Use consistent presentation.
>   I Have No Idea What This  Graphic Portrays
>   I Don't Know What This Graphic Portrays  Either
>   3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation,  positioning, and labels.
>   I don't know what information this  graphic was intended to communicate
>   [1]I don't know from the  markup exactly what this IMG illustrates.
>  Attachment Converted: "c:\eud-anne\attach\G3_gjr.htm" 
Anne Pemberton

Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 07:58:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC