- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 07:26:51 -0400
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), <ryladog@earthlink.net>, "3WC WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
William, I do disagree with you that pictures are less universal than languages. Think about any electric or electronic appliance from your washing machine to a complex computer system. You can write as many words as you want to indicate what you want the appliance to do, but until a designer reduces all your words to a picture/s, the circuit boards that control behavior cannot be manufactured. The notion that text is superior to illustrations is a false pride engendered by a desire to separate users into those worthy of receiving the message and those who are unworthy. Ther should be no distinctions of worthiness in accessibility. Anne At 08:43 PM 5/9/01 -0700, William Loughborough wrote: >At 10:59 PM 5/9/01 -0400, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote: >>Aren't pictures and symbols more universal, understood by more people >>around the world, than a single language? > >IMO, No. > >KH:: "They are already there in universal symbols on signs all around the >world..." > >WL: They're not really universal. Perhaps there will be something that >realizes Bliss' dreams of his symbols becoming a universal language but >we're not even close yet. > >-- >Love. > ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE > > Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 07:18:42 UTC