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

continuing:[Fwd: [webwatch] Re: How do I answer this???]

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 09:05:59 -0400
Message-ID: <373436B7.18E383D8@clark.net>
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [webwatch] Re: How do I answer this???
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 08:35:46 -0400
From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Reply-To: "webwatch" <webwatch@telelists.com>
To: "webwatch" <webwatch@telelists.com>
CC: "webwatch" <webwatch@telelists.com>
References:
<3.0.5.32.19990506084556.007c81f0@apembert.pop.crosslink.net><3.0.5.32.19990506181831.007cf280@apembert.pop.crosslink.net><3.0.5.32.19990507083304.007c4c60@apembert.pop.crosslink.net>

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. 

>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!!!

>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.

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.

>            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

This quote is what keeps me going. Accessibility is a right, even when
it's
a difficult task. 

				Anne
Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org
Received on Saturday, 8 May 1999 11:05:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:43 GMT