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

RE: WHat makes Icons accessible or not?

From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@teleline.es>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 23:32:51 +0200
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LPBBIBHMFONPBODMLDAOEENIDFAA.emmanuelle@teleline.es>
Hi all,

In my opinion, humble although based on 9 years of university studies, the
best option is the second series of icons that I find perfect from a
conceptual and iconographic point of view, the best thing that has seen for
a long time.

Just as William has said, so that an icon ends up being such, the
fundamental thing is that it is popularized. But if when he speaks of the
"market" he refers to this list, it is evident that the market prefers the
first series. In spite of I will expose it my reasons to prefer the second:

Objective public: It is a specialized public, the document he/she doesn't go
to the public in general.

Homogeneity: So much in the graphic style as in the "language" that is used
to transmit the information. The second series maintains the homogeneity.

Size: The second series has a standard size of 32 x 32 (the first one not).
The ideal thing would be to get that design in 16 x16.

The color: The second series is more discreet. If what is wanted is that
besides for what represents the image it is easy to distinguish the icons
for colors, you can use a color bottom.

I have created a page to show the difference among the two options:
http://www.sidar.org/iconstatag/iconstatag.htm

And it follows me seeming more appropriate the series without bottom color,
because the same as when the third series is used, it is too attractive and
it can end up tiring the view.
Defects that I find in the other two series:
The first series presents little homogeneity, it is seemingly simple but it
really contains too many lines.
The second, the size believes that it is more appropriate, but the icons 2,
3 and 4 are less clear and direct semantically speaking.

I hope these observations are useful.

Regards,
Emmanuelle

-----Mensaje original-----
De: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]En
nombre de Charles McCathieNevile
Enviado el: martes, 01 de mayo de 2001 10:37
Para: WAI GL
Asunto: WHat makes Icons accessible or not?


Hi folks,

currently in the Authoring Tool group we are working on adding some basic
icons to our techniques docuement, to identify which techniques are relevant
for what kind of tools.

There is a bit of a discussion on icons - at the moent we have had three
sets
of icons offered. So I wonder if people candraw any ideas that explain which
ones are good, and why / why not.

For convenience I have put the stuff into a web page:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/atag-icon-check - that includes the three sets of
icons mixed up in a fragment of what we use it for, so they can be seen in
context. I have to apologies for the fact that although longdesc links are
defined they currently lead to empty resources. I hope I will fix that
today,
but I hoped I would publish this page last week so I am not too optimistic
about it happening immediately.

cheers

chaals


--
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617
258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France)
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2001 16:34:22 GMT

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