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

RE: Graphic Designers work - potential for WCAG?

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:57:05 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010522165705.00814100@pop.erols.com>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: "'Meg Ross'" <Meg@digitalMeg.com>
Bruce,

    First of all, while William is working with earcons, I have not worked
with icons. I have worked with illustrations. There is a world of
difference in them, both as to use and in how they are made. Icons would
require drawing skills I don't have and/or software and hardware that I
don't have. As I thought about what was needed to illustrate Guideline 3, I
hit on the idea of showing the pages with sections marked, which I could do
with what I had available. 

	Icons are useful a quick reference marks in the content and are used to
find pertinent sections of content, while the illustrations share the same
purpose 
as the text content. The same icon may appear in many places, but an
illustration would be specific to a certain text content. 

	I do agree that the W3C icons should be in the smallest color palette that
they can use. Yes, the icons, after they have been developed and approved,
should be done in SVG. If they can be developed in SVG that would save
time, but I don't know if Meg has the software and skill yet to work in SVG
from the git-go. Since her web page shared her comparisons of gif and jpg,
I suspect she may not be ready to create in SVG. I'm not sure of the
benefits of PNG ...

					Anne	



At 10:11 AM 5/22/01 -0400, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>     My thoughts:      <>      No insult intended to Anne or William (both
>of whom have done a great job in leading us towards this end), but plainly
>if we include icons, they should be done professionally!    Owing to recent
>threads, I feel compelled to point out that icons of this sort do NOT make
>content accessible to non-readers.    From reading Meg's notes, I am
>confident that she can produce excellent work within the constraints I
>propose:   ""  See note below for my rant/justification*.     Images (that
>don't completely fill a rectangular area) should have a transparent
>background and NOT a white background (or other color chosen to match the
>default page background color).     Should we take the high road and insist
>on SVG only?   Thanks.   -- Bruce    ""  ""   This problem also highly
>correlates with the reasons for cringing anytime a content author tells
>their visitors to set their resolution to 800x600 (or higher).  ---------- 
>From:  Wendy A Chisholm 
>Sent:  Monday, May 21, 2001 5:11 PM 
>To:    w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
>Subject:       Graphic Designers work - potential for WCAG?   Hello all,  
>As I mentioned a few weeks ago at a teleconference, I've been looking for a  
>  I  
>began discussing possibilities with one person last week, Meg.   She put
>together a page that shows icons and screen shots she has designed  
>   It is at:  
>http://www.digitalmeg.com/wcag/   I was thinking she could create icons for
>each checkpoint and guideline to  
>  If someone clicked on the icon they would  
>  I sent her Anne's work, but we  
>haven't had a chance to discuss it yet.   I'll be talking with her again
>this week, any questions you would like me  
>to ask her?   My proposal: 
>I'll ask her to illustrate checkpoint 1.1 to see what she comes up  
>  We can then talk about it.   Thoughts? 
>--w 
>-- 
>wendy a chisholm 
>world wide web consortium 
>web accessibility initiative 
>seattle, wa usa 
>tel: +1 206.706.5263 
>/--  
>   
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 16:48:05 GMT

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