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

RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:45:38 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010831072904.00a71d90@pop.erols.com>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 08:44 PM 8/30/01 -0700, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>Anne:
> > Depends on the purpose of the site. If it is *the* comprehensive page on
> > ole George, then if you have fifty pictures, you need to put all
> > or most of the fifty pictures on the site.
>
>Chas:
>You seem to be confusing comprehensive and comprehensible. As you've used it
>above, comprehensive means "dealing with all or many of the relevant
>details." Comprehensible means "that can be comprehended; intelligible."

No I was not confusing the terms. My use was quite clear. The determination 
of how many graphics are too many goes to the purpose of the site. Don't 
forget that you can use break up any content (text or sets of graphics) 
into smaller pages, which increases the comprehensibility of the individual 
pages, and the comprehensibility of the site as a whole. Imagine a site 
that sells men's shirts. Do you want to limit the user to one or two 
pictures instead of showing pictures of all the different styles?

The point I was making is that the site author has to consider more than 
what goes on any individual page. The purpose of the site determines the 
content. The purpose of an individual page on a site governs the content.

Chas:
> > >We have a checkpoint that says "Write as clearly and simply as is
> > >appropriate for the content" and we have one that says
> > "Supplement text with
> > >non-text content." Why don't we have one that says "Ensure that non-text
> > >content is as clear and simple as is appropriate for the content"?
>
>Anne:
> > That sounds like a good technique to go with the checkpoint.
>
>Chas:
>Glad you approve, but why a technique? For text, it is checkpoint level. Why
>should it be any less than checkpoint level for non-text content?

See my last note about combining the text and non-text content issues into 
a checkpoint, and put "clear and simple" in the techniques for both ...

>Anne:
> > But,
> > what would you tell the AFB about all that bandwidth they are using to
> > share Helen's life with the world, or the Library of Congress not
> > to share the publicly paid for photographs and art work that tell the
> > history of our nation?
>
>I would ask them to make every kilobyte of bandwidth count. They should take
>their images to be drum scanned, and then provide them in multiple formats
>and sizes. A page with small thumbnails can link to a larger, but still
>reasonable, image. From there they can link to all the various versions of
>the photo.

Archive sites don't always provide thumbnails. Usually it's text 
descriptions and you get one size of the picture. If you download it, you 
can make it any size (within pixel limits, of course).

                         Gotta go.
                                         Anne

PS: Not sure if I will be able to access mail at work, and I'm headed to 
the airport right from work, so this may be the last from me until I get 
back from Wisconsin Monday night.


Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 07:55:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:12 GMT