W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text, Round Three *ding*

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:09:43 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20001004180943.007a9830@apembert.pop.crosslink.net>
To: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 06:32 PM 10/4/00 +0100, Dave  J Woolley wrote:
>	By "artistic" I'm not referring to the wordsmithing of 
>	novelists but to graphic, layout, background music, etc.,
>	design designed to have an emotional impact on the consumer,
>	sometimes to distract them from the lack of real content,
>	and create a distinctive house style for the company.

There isn't any difference between the "artistic" efforts of novelists who
substitute page after page wordy nothings to pad their works, and graphic
designers who would be using graphics in lieu of words. As Kynn pointed out
(albeit perhaps on the gl list), there are many, many web sites in which
the "real content" is the graphics, multimedia, sounds, etc. 

As for the "do-it" site, I find it astonishing that a person with such
limited skills puts such a high price tag on his work. I am also amused at
his assertion that web users are not willing to wait for the graphics of a
page to download while they peruse the text if any. There are so many
graphic content rich sites available on the web that would fold if there
was any truth to this assertion. Instead of folding, they are constantly
increasing. Putting roadblocks for graphics and multi-media on the web is
the issue that is roadblocking any possible non-threatening acceptance of
"web accessibility". Most graphic designers understand what some in
accessibility do not - that the audience for boring text-only sites is tiny
compared to the whole web audience, and probably shrinking. I call to mind
a friend who used Lynx for almost all his web work until he got a digital
line and saw what he'd been missing! I suspect he's not the only "once a
text-only" person who did/will do an about face when the technology
provided the speed to meet his needs. 

Not-withstanding these factors, it's important to remember that a large
segment of the "disabled population" which is promised as an audience for
"accessibility" is made up of folks who depend on graphics in lieu of or in
addition to text. Computers are a staple in many US households, and the
numbers are constantly increasing. It isn't just the folks in high-dollar
houses who own computers, it's the folks in the low-rent districts, trailer
courts, and rural areas who are coming on-line in increasing numbers. On my
way to school each day, I drive by the bus stops at several trailer parks,
and in each bunch of waiting students, there are several I know have access
to the web from home. I teach in a school for Pre-K through 2nd grade
(ages: 4-8) not a high school, and this is the case. 

So, please, give an ear to what Kynn is saying about the needs of graphic
designers. If there is a face-off between graphics and accessibility on the
web, I suspect graphics would win hands down. 

	My two-cents worth ...

					Anne 

Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 17:23:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:50 GMT