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

RE: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----

From: Mike Paciello <paciello@ma.ultranet.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:10:07 -0500
To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LPBBLAFOCBGBPOEHHLNGCEOLDPAA.paciello@ma.ultranet.com>

>Mouseovers are "needed"/"wanted" to attact the user's attention, to
> draw attention to the link. :)

Kynn -- not sure whether this is meant to be a serious statement. I'd
debate, from a usabilty perspective, that this is true. Mouseovers, more
often than not, come under the topic of "discovered functionality" --
particularly for the average, non-techie user. And I've yet to do a study
with the blind to see how they discover them, beyond the obvious hyperlink
breakout in the screenreader. The discovery process might be more difficult.

Note that I'm not saying that mousover-like functionality is bad. I tend to
think that this kind of functionality needs to be stated in the help and
documentation system of the interface and/or web application.

-Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:29 AM
> To: Lisa Seeman; WAI
> Subject: Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original
> Message-----
>
>
> At 5:46 PM +0200 3/6/01, Lisa Seeman wrote:
> >Yup, that would do it, It is fine from my perspective, but it may be
> >stronger then strictly necessary. For example a mouse over button effect,
> >may be OK, but could be considered animation.
>
> Mouseovers are "needed"/"wanted" to attact the user's attention, to
> draw attention to the link. :)
>
> --K
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
> http://www.kynn.com/
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 12:08:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT