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 18:30:09 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "'love26@gorge.net'" <love26@gorge.net>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

	If we include icons and illustrations with the guidelines, we will
certainly improve the comprehension of the guidelines, and make it easier
for people to find the  pertinant sections. The earcons are also to help
people find the pertinant sections. It would be most useful if the earcons
were automatically included in the sound/speech output done for a
non-sighted person, as they would then duplicate the use of the icons for
those who are sighted.

	I do NOT think that illustrative and graphical talent is spread as thinly
in the population as you think. I've seen too much quality stuff on the web
(not necessarily accessible), to think it's hard to do. If there were not
some excellent writers in the bunch, we'd be looking for someone to
construct the text as well as the graphics! (and sometimes when I'm reading
the guidelines, I wonder if that isn't essential anyway!)

	As William said, it's now a matter of "when", not "if"... If nothing else,
Lisa Seaman's response to my not-professional level illustrations indicates
that it must be a "when" if we are going to do what the charter says we're
to do. If there were 2 or 3 more on the committee with more background in
graphics, but I'm simply not good enough at it to do what needs to be done.
One hires a professional to do whatever one cannot, whether it's to replace
the transmission in a car, or to change the oil because one doesn't want to
get yucky, or illustrate a document as important as the one we are working
on. I expect, as Meg goes about doing the job of a professional, she will
end up learning a lot about web design from an accessibility standpoint, if
she doesn't know already. 

William and I, and perhaps others did notice that when one goes about the
task of illustrating text, the problems in the writing stand out. Sometimes
I had to add to the text mentally, in order to make a complete and useful
illustration, and sometimes I had to choose which parts of the text to
illustrate since to illustrate all would have required too large a piece
(at least with my limited illustrating skills).  

Unless a cost-benefit analysis is required of all guidelines, I don't think
the issue of including graphics needs to be addressed. What is the
cost-benefit of requiring a sequenced script of audio and multi-media? Was
that a consideration? Or is this a strawman?

As William says, we're finally to the point of saying this is a "when", not
an "if" ... Lisa made the point of how necessary this is when the reader is
directly in the targeted audience ... 

Bruce, the guidelines are very good at explaining how to make alternatives
for graphics, sound, and multi-media  but not very good at explaining how
to make alternatives for text. Filling in that gap is another step in
meeting the goal of the charter ...



At 10:42 AM 5/22/01 -0400, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>     Dear William et al.,    ""  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.     By modeling a site that requires the assistance of a
>paid graphics designer, we are doing just that.   """" "".  -- 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   "when""""""" -
Anne Pemberton

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 18:21:07 UTC

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