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

Re: interesting one for text equivalence

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:19:35 +0200
Message-ID: <002d01c0754d$25992920$2fa1003e@seeman>
To: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>, "WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I (in part) disagree.

Part of accessibility is usability and part of usability is clear concise
scalable text. (William, see that Nielson alert box, that you forwarded)

Adding text or even links to text that describe non semantic content, will
detract from this.

Of course, there are exception, but when you just  like changing the color
scheme every few month...


-----Original Message-----
From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>; Lisa Seeman
<seeman@netvision.net.il>; WAI <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: interesting one for text equivalence

>At 12:34 AM 1/2/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>Should I have some sort of description on my page (kynn.com) of the
>>graphical/visual elements of the page, for the benefit of those who cannot
>>see the CSS?
>Absolutely - it would be particularly "friendly" if this were not trumpeted
>as in "look how cool I am to change my site's appearance with the season"
>but was analogous to the note at the back of printed books which explain
>the fonts used (although not normally the reasons for the choices).
>People with(out) retinae may(n't) want to know these things or not have
>them forced upon us.
>I think this is the crux of the entire discussion about the "classes/CSS"
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 01:19:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:35 UTC