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: Julia Collins <julia@we3.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:20:17 -0800
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BC3151D1.3BAD%julia@we3.co.uk>

On 18/1/04 6:58 pm, "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca> wrote:

> all things being equal, good 'ol ASCII
> text has the broadest and most accessible means of conveying links, concepts
> and other ideas.  Re-enforcing the text with imagery is a positive
> accessibility "enhancer", but should not be thought of as a replacement

But all things aren't equal, and many web users can't read all that well. We
are looking at developing an area for pwld on a site we are working on,
which incorporates image and word - the images aren't particularly pretty,
but they are the images that pwld in this part of the UK are taught to
"read" with. (Nb this is under development - there are still screen reader
issues on the page structure which we are now addressing - so bear that in
mind when viewing). The use of imagery here is not just an enhancer.


It's difficult to talk in general terms when looking at accessibility for
pwld - and I'd include the excellent peepo in that statement.

I'm ashamed to say though that the first thing each of my children could
"read" was the golden arches. Good icons are instantly recognisable AND
quick to learn. (quicker perhaps than picking your way through loads of text
- particularly if you are, as about one in ten people are, borderline or
more dyslexic). If you are working on a site that aims to build and sustain
a community it might be to your users' advantage to use well designed
symbols backed up with clear text and/or alt text.

Julia Collins


Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 04:25:32 UTC

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