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

Re: URL attached this time. Still seeking evaluation.

From: Joe Night <joe.night@gateway2000.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:48:43 -0600
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990120144843.008cc170@mail.gateway2000.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 12:19 PM 1/20/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Joe Night wrote:
>"Rob's point does need some consideration. You've actually
>hit the nail on
>the head. I do have to deal with the "new user" or "confused
>user" issue.
>The style sheets help -- but for those who can't or won't
>turn them off, I
>could compromise by selecting a brighter color or maybe by
>working with a
>typeface that isn't so thin. The green on black doesn't do
>very good with
>the "squint" test."
>
>
>After reading Rob's comment about the green on default gray
>background on MSIE3, I'd have to agree. Although this brings
>up the old issue of what to do about older browsers. Will we
>be stuck forever playing work-around games because someone,
>somewhere might still be using a copy of ReallyOldBrowser
>0.9? Not that there aren't a lot of people still using MSIE
>(I presume), but when can we just start using stylesheets
>the way they were meant to be used? Sigh.

For some, it's a business decision. Any self-respecting commercial web site
is going to be able to come up with the simple statistics from their log
files. They know who's using Netscape 2.0. The decision may end up being a
coin-toss.
For instance, the pages I'm working with hold up (barely) under Netscape 2
and 3. Today I'm willing to settle for the "barely". As long as the
critical information is available, then no business function has been
compromised. 
...
>
>One other point: On your photo descriptions, you might ask
>someone who hasn't already seen your photos to read the
>descriptions. Then show him or her the photos. I tried
>reading ahead without looking at the photos and the
>descriptions mostly left me with no idea what the photo
>might be about. This process might give you a better idea.
>Or ask people to describe the photos to you. This will give
>you a different perspective on each photo, and might also
>result in more effective descriptions.
>
Yes, that's a challenge.
I was trying to avoid getting into the "how to deal with artistes" issue.
But it's unavoidable and I don't have "the" answer.
The images and description should match.
But maybe not in the way that would be expected. I think the normal
expectation would be something of a d-link. "Here's a photograph of six
dogs lined-up end to end on a see-saw. The dogs are black with red collars.
etc."
But when you consider the nature of the photographs I put up, I'm not
really asking you to admire the photo as much as I'm asking you to
"experience it".
The experience of the photos in the carnival section tend to be on the
"dark" side. Not just in the absense of light but sometimes rather dark in
a spiratual sense. They are somewhat vague with pieces of detail missing --
again hidden by the darkness or obscured in the grainey print.
With these particular photos, the subjective nature that I experience is
not something I can easily describe in words. The more words I add, the
more detail I fill in, the more the experience is changed.

What I did with the words is pretty much inadequate at any level. I have to
take responsibility for that. I was trying to get something done as quickly
as possible and I failed to take the the amount of time necessary to do
this correctly. The result is a token jesture -- and that, I think, is not
forgivable. Taking the time is a requirement.

But which way does this need to go?

Given lots of time, I could probably find the poetic words to add depth to
the experience. (On a commercial site I'd ask one of the writers.)
But my uncertainty remains. Do I "as an artist" continue to have an
obligation to provide literal interpretations as in a d-link?

If I end up trying to write bizarre poems or prose as an experiential
equivalence, and if I still end up building links to more precise
descriptions, then I'm doing a lot more than I ever intended -- which was
to put some photographs on line. I'm being pushed in the direction of a
multi-media experience.

This isn't bad. It's just different than the original intention.

I'm glad you brought it up. I bet in the next week I can find a better answer.

Thanks,
Joe Night
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 1999 15:48:47 GMT

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