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

RE: Graphic Designers work - potential for WCAG?

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:42:13 -0400
Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD0022DAF74@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>
To: "'love26@gorge.net'" <love26@gorge.net>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Dear William et al.,

Again, I like icons.  The more "mainstream" (i.e., picture-heavy) we make
the WCAG, the broader acceptance it is likely to have.  It would also be
good for us to have the practice of developing a graphically-oriented (sub)
site that was fully accessible, and it would be good to have a image-heavy
site available as an example to others.

On the other hand, I also believe that quality images are beyond the means
(in terms of either skill set or money) of most non-commercial content
providers.  I have some understandable misgivings with promoting the idea
that good web content is best left to the professionals.  By modeling a site
that requires the assistance of a paid graphics designer, we are doing just

I am not convinced that we have done a mindful cost/benefits analysis of
pursing this plan.  I think "if" versus "when" is still up for debate.  I
could be persuaded either way, but I don't believe the proposal (of adding
lots of icons to the WCAG) is strictly "win-win".

-- Bruce

> ----------
> From: 	love26@gorge.net
> Sent: 	Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:21 AM
> To: 	Bailey, Bruce; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; 'Wendy A Chisholm'
> Cc: 	'Meg Ross'
> Subject: 	RE: Graphic Designers work - potential for WCAG?
> At 10:11 AM 5/22/01 -0400, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
> 	if we include icons, they should be done professionally
> That is fast becoming "when we include icons" - thankfully - and in the
> usual sense "professionally" definitely matters. I might be competent to
> vote on icon choices but clearly will never "do" any. Earcons, maybe,
> since I've been in that general field in the past, but there likely aren't
> really any professional "earconists" - yet!
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 10:42:45 UTC

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