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

Re: Green Fingers

From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:58:05 -0700
Message-ID: <00b601c0cc16$a4c9a880$6601a8c0@sttln1.wa.home.com>
To: <apembert45@lycos.com>, "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>, "Jonathan Chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Marja-Riitta Koivunen" <marja@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert45@lycos.com>
> Incidently, I have a difficult time with so much said and inferred that
sound and multi-media are mis-used on the web. It is distressing to see how
often something that displeases or doesn't appeal a person is judged
"mis-used". One man's useless is another man's essential.

MM I didn't say multimedia displeased or didn't appeal to me. I said I've
run scientific tests which show that multimedia sites such as those
demonstrated by Jonathan are less usable than standard HTML-based web pages,
due to inconsistency, non-discoverability and distraction, and this is
consistent with other research in the field of web usability. It's not a
personal opinion.

Multimedia sites are designed not to look or function like one another,
which turns the navigation process from something learned by repetition into
something that needs to be re-learned at every page. Additionally, sites
like these obscure information by not being searchable (the text inside is
not only invisible to screen readers and text browsers, it can't be parsed
by search engines either). Yes, they look nicer and some people prefer them
on subjective criteria, but nothing that's been suggested here leads to an
objective statement that multimedia treatments of all the pages on the web
aid the accessibility of the whole web. Much less how to make
non-educational or non-entertainment sites accessible in this manner.

-
m
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 12:59:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:10 GMT