W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Slashdot adopts images as category generalisation.

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:22:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Graham Oliver <graham_oliver@yahoo.com>
cc: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0110190817500.24329-100000@tux.w3.org>
I think it is a common mistake to expect people will understand all
image-based content straight off. There are some widely recognised icons (a
big yellow 'M' in a particular font is apparently recognised as a place to
buy something to eat by more people in the world than any other single icon)
and there are more complex graphic presentations that are rapidly understood
by being in a context. And there is poorly designed graphics (the visual
equivalent of excessively long sentences, or ambiguous phrasing) almost
everywhere one looks.

My understanding is that for many people graphics are more rapidly understood
than text, and perhaps just as importantly much more easily recognised a
second or third time.

Can anyone provide pointers to real research - I know there are people on
this list who have done some...


On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Graham Oliver wrote:
  In response to your post I went to the site and of the
  5 images on the top right of the site.
  the only one that 'made sense' to me first off
  (without having to look at the associated tool tip)
  was the Television.

  That may or may not be relevant (I don't know) because
  I guess we all need to go through the learning curve
  of associating an image with a concept.

  The images are a relief from the huge amount of text
  however <grin>
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 08:22:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:14 UTC