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

Re: Question on content relevance

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:36:11 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010330103611.007c2e40@pop.erols.com>
To: Adam Victor Reed <areed2@calstatela.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Excellent point! After we specify that illustrations should be there, we
can tackle helping authors determine how to do it well ...

					Anne

At 07:01 PM 3/29/01 -0800, Adam Victor Reed wrote:
>I joined this list recently, so please be gentle with me if this is
>a topic that was already discussed here.
>
>Non-text illustrations (particularly in instruction manuals, or on web
>pages that deliver the user interface of a hardware, software, or
>service system) often contain many details that are not relevant to
>the task at hand. This irrelevant content will distract or disable
>some users, and will slow down, to the point of interfering with
>productivity, many more. I remember (from my days at Bell Labs) a
>documentation guideline to use line drawings, with relevant
>information only, rather than photographs (which tend to include
>irrelevant detail) as illustrations in technical manuals.
>
>Two questions:
>
>1. Is minimizing irrelevant detail something that should be explicitly
>included in the (upper case G) Guidelines?
>
>2. Is this a valid concern with respect to checkpoint instructions?
>For example, should one be concerned that the "all" in "a text
>equivalent for _all_ non-text content" will lead developers to include
>irrelevant elements of illustrations in the replacement text?
>-- 
>				Adam Reed
>				areed2@calstatela.edu
>				 
>Context matters. Seldom does *anything* have only one cause.
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 30 March 2001 11:49:36 GMT

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