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

Re: WHat makes Icons accessible or not?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 05:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0105020553550.24171-100000@tux.w3.org>
I guess one of the things that occurred to me is that editing is required by
the context - icons to identify different kinds of tools, but where all tools
are by definition editing tools.

The point about proliferation being miortant is a good one - "trash basket"
is a phrase that only makes sense to Australians who have grown up on a diet
of American television, in a country where we supposedly speak the same
language and always did.

Yes, I selected the film camera because it is one of the few things that I
actualy find truly iconic. (I suspect that most icons whoch work really well
are no longer actually relevant ue in language, where the "icons" are
metaphors, idioms, similies and so on).



On Tue, 1 May 2001, William Loughborough wrote:

  Using other versions of the "editing" icon with their small deviations will
  be lost in small icons, which will all look about the same. Also true for
  the "pencil" ones. The film camera for multimedia might be too archaic too
  soon but could also actually become an "icon".

  Whatever gets used most becomes the standard so that the famous "trash
  basket", "scissors", and "home" get to be iconic through proliferation
  rather than pertinence.
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 05:58:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:37 UTC