RE: Graphic Designers work - potential for WCAG?

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
that.

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!