- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 13:22:50 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9746 Summary: several bugs and comments on the draft from Bevi Chagnon Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: alt techniques (editor: Steven Faulkner) AssignedTo: faulkner.steve@gmail.com ReportedBy: faulkner.steve@gmail.com QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com 1) 11.1 is repeated twice. 2) Logos. >From our own testing we�ve found it useful to inform readers that they are viewing a logo. In your example that just says PIP CO, a blind user would not know if it�s a photo of a pipco, a photo of PIP CO�s building, or a logo. We�ve found that �Logo: PIP CO� works well in our studies. 3) Distinguishing between illustrations and photographs. To us who are sighted, there�s a big difference between seeing a photograph of something vs. an artist�s illustration. For example, I have on my desk right now 2 books for identifying birds. One is �Birds of North America� with illustrations, the other is �The Audubon Society�s Field Guide to North American Birds� with photos. In the illustrated version, the artist can make small bird markings more visible to the reader so that 2 similar birds in a family can be easily distinguished. But in the photographed version, you see the bird in its correct color and habitat, but you might not easily see a distinguishing marking. Essentially, a photo is the �real deal� and an illustration is an artist�s interpretation. So it might be helpful to say: �Photo: American Bald Eagle� and �Illustration: American Bald Eagle.� -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 13:22:52 UTC