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

Re: simple & understandable

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:50:16 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990624125016.007b9350@apembert.pop.crosslink.net>
To: Jamie Fox <jfox@fenix2.dol-esa.gov>
Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"@w3.org
Folks,
	
Wrestling with the task of showing how the non-text folks can be
accommodated on the same page with non-graphical folks, I've made some
alterations to a web site for an organization that provides services to
disabled persons. The original web site was to be accessible to the
visually disabled folks who are already part of the organization, and it
passed Bobby, but had nothing on it for the non-text folks. I've started
developing the front page of the site to be accessible to more than text
folks. 

I created a graphical presentation of the six major links on a site and put
them all into one large graphic that fills most of the opening screen. So
far, the single image seems not to pose the problems that a set of seven or
so graphics on the page would have caused. 

The new version of my page is at:
http://www.enabling.org/tryout
the original version of the page is at:
http://www.enabling.org

What else would be necessary to make the page at
http://www.enabling.org/tryout accessible to both text and non-text people???

Jonathan, are the graphics meaningful enough to help your folks know
whether they want to go to that link or not? 

			Anne

PS: The choice of graphics for these links isn't set in stone; but it
should give a general idea. Choosing "the best" graphic to convey the
precise meaning is as involved as choosing "the best" word or phrase to use
in a document!




At 11:03 AM 6/18/1999 -0400, Jamie Fox wrote:
>Seems to me that being simple and understandable on highly complex issues 
>is not a real possibility.  You wouldn't give the same presentation to a 
>middle school science class that you would to a PHD seminar on 
>astrophysics.  One must cater to a certain degree to the likely audience. 
> The only thing you can reasonably demand is that the material be 
>accessible not understandable.  Demanding otherwise implies a positive 
>responsibility to educate all people everywhere in everything.
>
>-Jamie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Anne Pemberton [SMTP:apembert@crosslink.net]
>Subject:	Re: tired of this thread
>
>
><snip> 2) change the current status of the guideline for "simple and 
>understandable" text from "recommended" to "required"</snip>
>
>				Anne
>
>
Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org
Received on Thursday, 24 June 1999 12:41:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:44 GMT