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: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:14:43 +0000
Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, tina@greytower.net
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Message-Id: <5B24EA62-4AAB-11D8-8A8C-0003939B5AD0@btinternet.com>

perhaps I should make it clear at this stage (again) that peepo.co.uk 
is dedicated to the public domain
this means that all the graphics are freely useable by anyone for any 
peepo.com is used as a bridge to the broader world, and this is far 
from ideal ~:"

Is it possible that WAI might advocate:
public domain link graphics for AAA
Royalty free link graphics for AA
Restrictive trademark for A

well perhaps that's a little too much detail, but you seem to suggest 
royalty free may not be good enough, and that trademarks really don't 
get us far down the accessibility route.


On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 04:53  pm, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> On 18 Jan 2004, at 23:37, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
>> 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.
> Nor do I. Sadly I am even worse as a graphic artist. This is why I 
> write so much :(
>> 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.
> Well, images as links have a long history - but it seems that there 
> has been relatively little work done in WAI to try and collect the 
> things we have learned. I think that such work would be valuable. (I 
> don't mean just starting from scratch - we should look at the existing 
> work).
>> is "شارل مككثينبل" "click here" possibly?
> Nope, it's my name written in arabic in Unicode. (hint: try looking at 
> the text in Lynx). It isn't an easy way to find me though because I 
> don't use a consistent transcription of my name. (Then again, others 
> don't for latin characters either. Google is semantic-web-like enough 
> for me to find out who Charles McCathy-Neville is, and eikeon.com/foaf 
> has worked out that people write my names in ways that most systems 
> can't use to allege a match, but it's language logic isn't as good for 
> arabic)
>> 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 ~:"
> They may be royalty free, but are not always condition free. EasyJet 
> is a site that provides a handful of link graphics - 
> http://www.easyjet.com/en/contact/link.html - where they specify the 
> condition that such links are made to their home page (I suppose they 
> would like this link to be to their home page too, but I would be 
> surprised if they cut me off as a customer for not doing so).
>> 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.
> There are some interesting issues here about how language is created 
> and used. In general it happens because people use the same thing - 
> whether that's because it came built in to their software, or because 
> their friend invented a word they like. I expect similar approaches to 
> determine whether graphics are good on the Web for linking, but some 
> careful study and thinking is required to work out what are the 
> factors that determine success and failure so we can say something 
> better than "If you are McDonalds, you can make it easy to find you on 
> the Web...".
> Cheers
> Chaals

Jonathan Chetwynd
"It's easy to use"
Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 13:08:43 UTC

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