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

Re: Graphic Designers work - potential for WCAG?

From: Neil Morris <neil@pop3.poptel.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:53:50 +0100
Message-ID: <y$w5rQYeq3C7Eww9@poptel.net>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, "'Meg Ross'" <Meg@digitalMeg.com>, Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
It may be worth checking out some of the work that widget software have 
done around symbols. They have a web page at http://www.widgit.com/

While symbols are not the answer for everyone (you often need to learn 
what they mean!), they may be a useful resource. It is also worth noting 
that the people I work with often prefer photos to symbols

Widgit have graphic designers who have been producing symbols for many 


Neil Morris

In message <>, Anne 
Pemberton <apembert@erols.com> writes
>    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
>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?
>>wendy a chisholm
>>world wide web consortium
>>web accessibility initiative
>>seattle, wa usa
>>tel: +1 206.706.5263
>Anne Pemberton

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 04:55:19 UTC

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