W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1999

and my response:Re: [webwatch] Re: How do I answer this???

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 09:29:18 -0400
Message-ID: <37343C2E.C78D025@clark.net>
To: webwatch <webwatch@telelists.com>
CC: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
See me learn on the fly and raise some issues in my message below. 
this is a good dialog so I want to get it right.

Anne Pemberton wrote:
> At 06:59 AM 5/7/1999 -0700, William Loughborough wrote:
> >AP:: "I would like to see a guideline that specified graphics be
> >included on every page with text .... perhaps a minimum of one/two
> >graphics per screen page to aid understanding for those who NEED them
> >and those who are helped by them. Such a guideline could insure that
> >consideration for including graphics would be extended to "information"
> >pages as well as "entertainment" pages."
> >
> >WL: I would like to see an example that would go with such a guideline.
> The graphic for the above paragraph could be a drawing showing a page, with
> boxes as the paragraphs (with lines representing text) and boxes as the
> graphics (with any simple picture to show its a graphic) showing them side
> by side.
dp In this instance then, you'd end up using a lot of alt="" tags? 
this could get messy as browsers tend to use alts as tooltips and
other strange things happen which might at best annoy a non graphical
> >Most of us can describe our graphics with words but the other way around
> >isn't "intuitively obvious" how to do.  E.g. how would you illustrate
> >the email containing what I quoted above?  Perhaps "illustrate" is the
> >wrong word?  Would the graphics associated with the sites that contain
> >the language for the ADA be made more accessible by pictures, and if so
> >how to decide what pictures?  Etc., etc.  It is simple to wish for such
> >a thing (I wish my computer would do what I want it to do instead of
> >what I tell it to do) but not easy to implement it - in fact in
> >pragmatic terms often impossible.
> No at all. There are immense quantities of clip art available - that are
> time consuming to look thru for what you want, but it can often be found.
> In addition, simple line drawings can be created on paper and scanned, or
> created directly in most graphics programs. It is not considered
> pragmatically impossible to illustrate every textbooks that school children
> use, and its not pragmatically impossible to illustrate magazine and
> newspapers. Why should it be pragmatically impossible to illustrate web
> page? It's just good design!!!
...and long load time!!!!...
> >AP:: "I would also like to see guidelines that suggested use of frames
> >for large web sites so that the links to other parts of the site are
> >visually available no matter where the user is in the site."
> >
> >WL: Again, how would this work?  I'm one of those "impaired by age" and
> >I just don't see how putting frames would help but perhaps if you could
> >be more specific?
> You can look at an example. The site has recently been redone and doesn't
> have the same format I liked, but the new one (which appears to be in a
> frames set up, but I'm not sure, frames are invisible to me....)
> http://www.netgrocer.com is a good example. You can just type "netgrocer"
> in the URL window and get there on that much. The top frame keeps the main
> departments of the store always at your fingertips, and the left side frame
> shows the links for where you are .... if you click on groceries, the left
> side frame shows all the available grocery categories. If you click on any
> grocery item, the left frame changes to show details and individual
> products in that "aisle" ...  When the left frame shows details in an aisle
> and the individual products available in the category, there is a top
> button that will return you to the list of all categories without having to
> use the back button.
dp it is not nice for me in netscape and in ie, it takes forever to
get to the meat of the matter so to speak.  I'd caution that there
must be another way and I haven't tried it but it would most likely
fail the bobby test miserably.  typing netgrowser does not work for me
in either browser because I turn that nonsense off incase there is an
ftp or some other thing like gofer I want to go to so points are lost
here but your main point still stands.
> By contrast, the J Crew page www.jcrew.com, uses a single frames design
> that always provides the department, but it you look at an individual item,
> you have to use the back key to return to the section you were looking at,
> or click to return to the department (e.g. womens), and re-path to the
> groups of items you were looking for...
> I've watched the JCrew page improve drastically in its accessibility to
> ordinary schoppers .... originally the page contained only small graphics
> borrowed from the paper catalog which were too dark to be useful on the
> web. Now they seem to be using much better graphics to illustrate the
> items, and on all/most, you can click on the item to get a larger, very
> detailed (you can even see the details of the fabric) picture so you can
> tell if the item belongs in your wardrobe or not.
we'll let someone else have a turn at the one above.
> This quote is what keeps me going. Accessibility is a right, even when it's
> a difficult task.
I'm not sure accessability is a right in the sense that it may be
being viewed.  rights are those things that for which hinderence
should be removed because basic needs cannot be met and society cannot
move forward without them.  accessability is right means that it is
the right thing to do where is rites or how ever you want to spell it
in terms of the human condition may not be totally applicable here. 
with out this rite, people will most likely not starve, loos their
shelter, loose their dignity and I don't think it is covered under the
constitution anywhere so making that claim may be a bit immature.  We
need to move toward access to all by the widest audience possible
without conflict though.

>                                 Anne
> Anne L. Pemberton
> http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert
> apembert@crosslink.net
> Enabling Support Foundation
> http://www.enabling.org

Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
Touching The Internet:
Voice: 301.949.7599
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
Best of service
for your small business
network needs!

---sig off---
Received on Saturday, 8 May 1999 09:28:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:04 UTC