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: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:37:43 +0000
Cc: tina@greytower.net, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Message-Id: <EE7837AA-4A06-11D8-9820-0003939B5AD0@btinternet.com>
Chaals & Tina,

I do find it sad that I have neither the wit, patience, ability or 
charm to express myself more clearly, but thanks again.
BTW Chaals how about your views on AAA conformance and the need to 
include a 'link to us' graphic?

the 'obvious' point being that if everyone has a go, and link images 
are royalty free (did I forget to mention that?)
then pretty soon there will be a public and rich semantic graphical 
directory, which could be a great help....

images as images are great, but images as links are different kettle of 
fish, one which has little history, and much to offer.

is "شارل مككثينبل" "click here" possibly? those video links 
http://www.aljazeera.net/images/j-video-icon.gif at aljazeera.net were 
great for those of us who knew no better! and may even be less bits 
than 'video feed' certainly they only take up one or two characters of 
screen estate.
next page, or play and speaker or sound are other well known and 
popular graphics....

'Link to us' graphics are similar to trade marks, and favicons. They 
publicise a product, however because they are intended to be used by 
others, they will generally be royalty free. This means there is the 
possibility of their being used in other contexts. Furthermore like 
those very irritating logos on TV stations they may become ubiquitous, 
like toilet signs. This is where they become extremely useful. SVG 
would be great ~:"
http://www.gnote.org/svg-images/Diner.svg may not be as well known, but 
may have more interesting references?

For me 'history' might be a pyramid, alternatively 
http://www.symbolworld.org/images/learning/history.jpg is a ~17th 
century ship.
So this could be a confusing morass, or just conceivably a consensus 
could arise.
Abstract topics are extremely difficult to illustrate well.
They need a broad and speedy evaluation, which the web is eminently 
suited to provide.



On Sunday, January 18, 2004, at 07:10  pm, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> One way of making things easy is to provide identifiers. We are almost 
> all used to the link "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" going 
> somewhere we expect, but "شارل مككثينبل" probably isn't helpful. On 
> the 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 particular script in white, on a red background, underlined with a 
> stylised white banner, is also often associated with a drink even by 
> people who can't tell what the characters are.
> Many organisations who use a text logo have a particular font  - 
> perhaps not even very legible - that they use to identify themselves. 
> A large computer company may have three letters in a font that could 
> never be considered clear, but can be identified by people who don't 
> know how to read latin script.
> 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 
> 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 has mentioned before there are a number of non-readers who 
> see a picture of a green bus, and will wait all day at the stop 
> because the only buses that pass are red - many of these people are 
> surprised not to see a picture of where they live when they follow 
> this allegedly universal button.
> As Tina points out, text information is the most useful to many people 
> in this context, but the graphics are also a strategy for solving what 
> might otherwise be impenetrable access barriers. This has been 
> recognised to the extent that you can go to court if someone else uses 
> "your" trademark, which implies that the idea is well-enough 
> understood for people to work out a system for protecting its use.
> Hope that sort of helps to explain the idea.
> Cheers
> Chaals
> On Sunday, Jan 18, 2004, at 19:06 Europe/Rome, Tina Holmboe wrote:
>> On 18 Jan, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
>>> and others who may be severely graphically challenged, please refer 
>>> to:
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/
>>   I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. Could you help me by
>>   elaborating on your point ?
>>> Maestro has many meanings, the graphic only one. This is true for
>>> almost any text or graphic.
>>> Furthermore many and possibly most users find it easier to remember a
>>> graphic.
>>> finally everyone's doing it, well plenty are, so why not reflect the
>>> consensus in this instance?
>>   I don't quite follow this either.
>>> IMHO any page which fails to have a 'link to us' graphic cannot be 
>>> AAA
>>> rated.
>>   Nor this. Could you possibly go into abit more detail, and help me 
>> to
>>   understand your conclusion ? I'm afraid that, as English is not my
>>   native language, I might be easily confused at times.
>> -- 
>>  -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
>>    tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
>>    [+46] 0708 557 905
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
> charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org

Jonathan Chetwynd
"It's easy to use"
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2004 17:31:32 UTC

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