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

Re: Symbols

From: <Lovey@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:23:59 EDT
Message-ID: <f86b3168.3609830f@aol.com>
To: mencap-ni@dnet.co.uk, w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

In a message dated 9/23/98 9:01:02 AM, mencap-ni@dnet.co.uk wrote:

<<One curious thing here is that these web sites are accessible to people with

learning or cognitive disabilities but probably not accessible under the

w3org guidelines. A bit of a dichotomy I think>>

Thinking about this a bit I can see an advantage to haing a standard set of
Universal Symbols. There are people who use the internet that cannot read.
(Consider people with TBI's)
Signed English (not ALS) is the closest method to universal symbolism I can
think of.  
Signed English is taught to Down's Syndrome children from day one to help them
communicate what they cannot speak. They become rather adept at it - it is
But note - I have often seen the kids make up their own Signs for objects or
actions they do not know the proper Sign for.  Usually very creative, but like
playing charades.
Signed English and ASL also varies from region to region. I am sure not many
people outside Texas know the Sign for "Chicken Fried Steak". And I would not
know many signs used in other English speaking countries (ie; Australia).
Yet, very basic Sign Language is universal. 
Replicating Signs as graphic images on the web is another thing because most
signs require  motion. 
Symbol Cards representing basic activities such as eating and toileting are
also used and they prove to be very effective - placing them in a sequence to
form a sentence, etc. But these too have thier flaws. ie; we have never owned
an electric can opener - so, when our child was presented with a picture of
one he said it was a radio.
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 1998 19:24:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:02 UTC