At 3:13 PM -0400 2001/7/26, gregory j. rosmaita wrote: >aloha, anne! >thanks for playing in my sandbox! four questions: >1. is "RADAR" an acronym? if so, do you know what it stands for? >2. what is "AAMR"? You'd have to ask the author this -- third party viewer's intent is less valuable than author's! >3. what is the foreground color/color of the text? is it green as well? >(that seems to be the motif) Red. >4. is the font used a serif or sans-serif font? Serif, maybe something like Times New Roman. Is that important? >i suppose that no one who approaches the graphic with a tabula rasa would >know the answers to the first 2 questions, which indicates to me that this >particular graphic isn't a very successful conduit of information... Not necessarily, it depends on (a) what it's meant to do, and (b) how it is used. Let's not assume that looking at a graphic in a background can tell us anything about how useful it is!! >oh, one more question: >5. would you follow this link out of the blue? if so, why? If I was looking for RADAR at AAMR, then sure. >i'm not sure i would if the alt text just said: "RADAR @ AAMR", which >appears to be the literal textual equivalent for the graphic... still, >there is a checkpoint in WCAG1 (checkpoint 4.2) which recommends providing >an expansion for acronyms and abbreviations where they first occur... This is an effect of a broken spec for the <img> tag. Currently you can only do this: <img alt="RADAR @ AAMR" /> ...or an expansion of the same. But ideally you should be able to do: <img> <abbr>RADAR</abbr> <abbr>@</abbr> <abbr>AAMR</abbr> </img> The problem is that <img> is an empty tag when really it should be like <object>. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network Tel +1 949-567-7006 ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.comReceived on Thursday, 26 July 2001 17:54:18 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT