W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: The visual Web vs. seamless accessibility (was Re: RIT - Javascript)

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 18:38:34 -0400 (EDT)
To: inx <inx@ryoma.i-kochi.or.jp>
cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980504183808.5769A-100000@shell.clark.net>
for an aural text, black on black is nice.


On Tue, 5 May 1998, inx wrote:

> DL: Hello, I'm new here. My name is Davey Leslie, I'm in Japan.
> Anyway...
> 
>  
> > RD:: "I maintain it's better to have too much information than not
> > enough..."
> 
> DL: Ah, hmm, well... I'm trying to figure this out, because it's clearly
> important, but I go round and round on this issue. When sighted people view a
> graphic layout, there are subtle visual cues that let us know "oh, this is
> important; this is not." Our eyes do not move in a linear fashion, but
> instead, scan the page and pick out the useful bits quickly. As designers, we
> use this fact to our advantage-- perhaps it's even one of our main tools. But
> then we come to the aural user. If we include a paragraph of description for
> each and every graphic, aren't we warping the relationships between the
> different bits of information, and, in effect, challenging the aural user to
> wade through the swamp of information and pick out the useful bits? Isn't
> there a point of information overload? Isn't a "clean" text-only page better?
> Is a wall of information really better? I really don't know. (And then I start
> to wonder, "hmm.. what would be a really cool aural page?")
>  
> -- 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> inx: english by design 
> inx@ryoma.i-kochi.or.jp
> TEL (0888) 44-0352  FAX (0888) 44-6251
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 

Hands-On-Technolog(eye)s
touching the internet
voice: 1-(301) 949-7599
poehlman@clark.net
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
http://www.clark.net/pub/poehlman
Received on Monday, 4 May 1998 18:38:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:39 GMT