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

RE: Cognition Simulation

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:31:05 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Paul Bohman" <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>, "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

         I agree, and have probably said already too many times, that until 
we say there is a need for illustrations we cannot begin to address the 
issues of "how to" illustrate        "clearly and simply" .... there are 
times when a bad photo is better than nothing!  (an example is my kids' 
page of Famous Americans ... can't find a picture of one of the FA's the 
kids have to learn about, Susan B. Anthony, because there are apparently no 
pictures of her smiling ... so a drawing that shows a half smile, with the 
"grouchy" pictures as back up, were the solution) .... not as "clear and 
simple" as I would like the page to be ...but A picture is often better 
than NO picture!


At 05:09 PM 8/24/01 -0600, Paul Bohman wrote:
> >Having a checkpoint about adding illustrations makes little sense to me
>unless there is also a checkpoint saying that we should make illustrations
>(and other "text equivalent content") clear and simple. Why is it only text
>that needs to be clear and simple?
>This is an excellent point. Now we enter into another quagmire: how to
>determine if an illustration is clear and simple.
>Potential barriers to clarity and simplicity include:
>cultural bias
>poor composition
>too many visual distractions
>poor contrast
>poor artistic abilities
>and many more, of course.
>Still, the issue is important (and has been brought up before): the quality
>of the alternative/equivalent needs to be high enough so that it can be as
>close to a true alternative/equivalent as possible.
>Paul Bohman
>Technology Coordinator
>WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
>Utah State University

Anne Pemberton

Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 20:51:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC