W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: link to us: Is there a recommendation to provide a graphic for external linking? if so where?

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:59:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <200401181959.i0IJxjh6012071@asterix.andreasen.se>
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

On 18 Jan, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> One way of making things easy is to provide identifiers. We are almost 

  Yes. I do not think that anyone would dispute that. However, the
  important point - which I have failed to make - is that the identifier
  you provide must pass along enough information so that the user
  understands it.


> other hand, a giant yellow stylised M, in a particular font, on a red 
> background, is allegedly the most recognised symbol in the world. A 

  actually took me a moment to grasp - I am sure I would have been
  quicker had I seen it. However, this:


  is also a form of graphical symbol, and easily as reckogniseable as
  the stylished M. The reason for this is that people know what
  McDonalds is. If they had not know it, they would not reckognise it.

  This was my point regarding the first posting in this thread: the icon
  used for the link was, atleast to me, not offering enough information
  for me to decide whether I should follow the link or not.

  Checkpoint 13.1 is quite clear on this - the link should offer enough
  such information. Had the link been the stylished M you refer to, I am
  quite sure I'd understand that it was meant as a link to the website
  of McDonalds Corp. As it was, information was lacking.

  FOr a graphical symbol- one which is not text or contains text the
  recipient do not understand - to communicate enough information is if
  it is "known", ie. if seeing it triggers a memory recall. Such is,
  more often than not, the case of the 'M' logo. It was not, however,
  the case with the 'Maestro' one.

  I hope this helps explain my point.

> For some people who are used to not reading, these graphic symbols are 
> a good way to identify things, and therefore to make clear what a link 

  If they communicate enough information, yes.

> target is. Lots of people think a small rectangle vertically in the 
> bottom of a square, with a triangle on top of it (and perhaps some more 
> decoration) represents the idea of page d'accueil, although as Jonathan 

  I drew this on a whiteboard, and showed it to my family. It was
  identified as "Oh, thats the eject symbol on a VCR". Since neither of
  us know what "page d'accueil" means, I'm afraid we can't readily
  identify what you intend to communicate.

  "Home" ? "Top" ? "Eject" ? No, I am not joking - this isn't readily
  clear to me.

> in this context, but the graphics are also a strategy for solving what 
> might otherwise be impenetrable access barriers. This has been 

  Graphics are, yes. However: they must, then, be able to *communicate*
  information. The original example simply didn't - nor, I might add,
  does http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/ - and I have still NO idea why I
  should go there.
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2004 15:02:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:27 UTC