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

Re: Slashdot: How should Govt sites be designed?

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:24:41 -0800
Message-Id: <a05010409b65ef878e62a@[]>
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>, Dr Nick Fiddes <nick@scotweb.ltd.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 5:20 PM -0800 12/14/00, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>	Checked our your site, and if I was interested just for 
>myself, it would
>be a nice site, but for persons with disabilities that affect the ability
>to read, the site is just one more useless government site. The only place
>I could find any icons or "illustrations" to support the plethora of words
>was on the site about accessibility where the included the icons for all
>the awards received. Even the site for What's New, with a link to
>information on PWD's adding income, was mared by the absence of any
>illustrations to guide a poor reader to the information they want.

Anne, can you take one or two specific pages and describe what kind
of illustrations would be useful?  E.g., "this page could use an
illustration of a man with a shovel after the first headline" or
"this page could use some sort of graphical representation of the
numbers in table 3".

I am fine with the idea of making sites more accessible by using
graphics, but I think many people (myself included) are not
entirely sure what kind of graphics are necessary.  Also, if you
could explain _why_ you made the recommendations, that would help
a lot too, as it will enable web designers to get into the right
mindset when thinking about conveying content not only through
text but in a variety of different ways.


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 17:58:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:10 UTC