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

Re: Illustrating Guidelines

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:51:06 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010511165106.007ff210@pop.erols.com>
To: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Lisa,

	Thanks so much for sharing your ability to use the graphics as I had hoped
they would be used. I am not an illustrator, and was not certain they would
actually do what was intended. You confirmed that I did so, and I am so
glad you said so. 

	If this is the type of "hard data" Jason needs,  then we are off to a good
start. Although I taught LD kids for almost 15 years, I've been five years
away from the field, so checked this morning with an LD teacher for 4-5th
graders, who confirmed what I have been trying to tell folks here, that the
multi-media aides understanding, and it does so in very spectacular ways!

    My husband (who insisted I post the bit last night to express his
dismay over those who cannot accept the importance of graphics) is, in
addition to his vision impairments he wanted stated, also learning
disabled, with some dyslexia and lots more dysgraphia. Unlike you, he will
not attempt to write online, and always has me do his writing for him...

	You are to be commended for your efforts!!!

					Anne

	


At 02:47 PM 5/11/01 +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>I had a look at the Anne' s site. It was fantastic. It aided comrehention,
>by alowig me to fit the word to the consept as I read them.
>
>In fact I used to draw block dyagrams and flow dyagrams, instead of taking
>notes. That way I could remember and understand what was said. I somtimes do
>somthing similar mentialy when I am following a complexted discution. Siliar
>methids are recomeden by the BDA.
>
>As I clearly demonstrated at the November ftf I have learning disabilty. The
>only way I can remember thing with an impaired visual and auditory memory is
>though the sense on context and meaning. By Anne illustrating the concept
>with a diagram or graphic, I new what I was reading the first time I read
>it, instead of reading the words, and then trying to fit them in to the
>concept or thought that they represent.
>
>Now I now I do not represent every dyslexic on the plaint, and that there
>are many sub-groups of dyslexia, but I am one of the lucky ones who have
>some measure of all impairments that have been grouped together as dyslexia.
>In other words not all dyslexic will find it useful, but it seems to me that
>people with an impaired auditory memory (estimated at 60% of dyslexics - see
>the many works over the last 15 years by work by Tallal) and/or weak
>phonetic processing (possibly 80% Stanovich, et all, or Blachman) skills
>probably will.
>
>
>----Original Message-----
>From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
>To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>; Matt May
><mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
>Cc: 3WC WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
>Date: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:48 PM
>Subject: Re: Illustrating Guidelines
>
>
>>Jason,
>>
>> Not to be argumentive, but what "hard data" did you use to establish alt
>>tags and scripts of sound files? What "hard data" was used to establish the
>>need for redundent text links when a sitemap is used? What "hard data" is
>>used to establish the need for a syncronized script to multi-media?
>>
>> Anne
>>
>>At 02:07 PM 5/11/01 +1000, Jason White wrote:
>>>Perhaps it would indeed be better to create a separate, multimedia
>>>presentation based on the guidelines than to insist that every
>>>guideline and/or checkpoint be illustrated. Also, though there has
>>>been much discussion on this thread, there has been little, if any,
>>>"hard data" regarding the extent to which, given a document of this
>>>nature, illustrations will aid comprehension (for people with
>>>disabilities in particular or for readers more generally), and if so what
>>>kinds of illustrations are needed, and in what context. Further, it
>>>may (or may not) be more effective to improve the document by
>>>clarifying the language used, than to introduce superfluous graphics.
>>>
>>>What we need, I think, and this is clearly lacking in the whole
>>>discussion of "cognitive" issues as they pertain to the guidelines, is
>>>firm (non-anacdotal) evidence of what factors most influence the
>>>comprehensibility of different classes of content, for which groups of
>>>potential readers, and under what conditions. In that case, at least,
>>>one can provide a prioritized list of factors which document and web
>>>site editors can take into consideration should they wish to make
>>>their publications more accessible to people with cognitive
>>>disabilities.
>>>
>>>Needless to say, these are my personal observations and are not made
>>>in my capacity as working group co-chair. To move this discussion
>>>forward, however, I think there is a need for well researched and
>>>credible evidence as to what techniques are most useful in improving
>>>comprehension. Those which can be applied across a broad variety of
>>>web content warrant a place in WCAG 2.0 checkpoints; those of more
>>>limited applicability are nevertheless important and should either be
>>>treated as "usability" requirements, or placed in a separate document
>>>intended for content developers who want to optimize their
>>>publications for audiences that include people with
>>>(particular kinds of) cognitive disabilities.
>>>
>>>
>>Anne Pemberton
>>apembert@erols.com
>>
>>http://www.erols.com/stevepem
>>http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>>
>>
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 17:43:34 GMT

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