- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:20:30 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> JS: Actually, I'd suggest a picture. However, if you're roasting wild pig on > the beach with a bunch of boisterous people partying a sound clip of the > event may also be pleasing to the listener. Depending upon who is doing the > talking, of course. This is ear candy. It's unlikely to meet the requirement of adding understanding. It's also sort of thing that a glossy site producer would do without prompting if the perceived technical, financial and time scale constraints permitted it. By perceived technical constraints, I include the need to use HTML; HTML was not designed as a multimedia language and should only be used to link together true multimedia (computer) lnaguages, where they are needed. To a non-literate, user, the sound carries the message "might be a barbecue", whereas even a picture would carry the equivalent of many words of much higher quality information (if it was a picture of the event, not a stock picture). I'd say the sizzling sound has more to do with maintainig the "viewer's" attention and pure entertainment, than to actually communicating. That again is something that advertising agencies do without prompting.
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2001 05:39:25 UTC