FW: Illustrating Guidelines

> As I mentioned in my last post, I respectfully disagree.  I don't think
> the bulk of illustrations speak for themselves.  I do agree that the
> example does demonstrate that even technical documents benefit from the
> addition of icons.
> 
> The only way the "consistency" image works is if one looks at the enlarged
> version.  This requires a graphic the size of a whole screen.  This is a
> helpful illustration, in much the same way that the current techniques
> documents includes the occasional picture.  The large consistency graphic
> still only supplements the body text.  When it is reduced to a smaller
> size (so that it may appear inline with the content) it becomes a useful
> "visual bookmark" or icon -- but only because one already has an
> understanding of the text!
> 
> I think this kind of illustration is eminently useful.  The concept,
> however, might be better served by having a "mock website" that
> illustrates these ideas.  On the other hand, the WAI material, and to a
> lesser degree the whole W3 site, does attempt to actively "practice what
> we preach".
> 
> ----------
> From: 	love26@gorge.net
> Sent: 	Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:46 AM
> To: 	Anne Pemberton; Sean B. Palmer
> Cc: 	w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: 	Re: Illustrating Guidelines
> 
> At 07:10 AM 5/10/01 -0400, Anne Pemberton wrote:
> >I have been very surprised that there has been no discussion about the 
> >content of any of my illustrations.
> 
> In a sense, at least from my point of view, that is because they so
> clearly 
> speak for themselves. Certainly the "major" one at 3.1 so clearly 
> "illuminates" what constitutes "consistency" that I for one have no 
> argument that: it does its job; it proves the point.
> 
> There.
>