Re: Text equivalents and cognitive considerations

I agree with Gregg that providing graphics, making sure text is electronic
and keeping language and page structure simpe is the way we are going to get
the best results. I happen to think, based on my experience in using the
guidelines and in the way they have been applied, that the priority of
illustrating pages with graphics has been placed too low. And very little
attention has been given to it in general, which is a shame. 
In actual fact I suspect there is also value in adding sound to pages,
although the current techniques for that are extremely expensive in terms of
bandwidth/storage and even in requirng specialised softwaqrre to deal with a
mess of proietary and competing formats.

Charles mcCN


On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
[snip]
  the electronic text approach seems the most universal approach across
  disabilities including those with problems dealing with (or an inability to
  deal with)  printed text.
[snip]
  RE: PEOPLE WHO CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE TEXT EVEN IF IT IS READ TO THEM.
[snip]  
  USE OF GRAPHICS TO FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING OF TEXT (READ OR LISTENED TO)
  I do think (and so do others) that pictures and graphics can be added to a
  page such that it is easier to understand the page (even if it is being read
  to a person).  Thus there is a guideline that puts a priority on that.
  There is also one that states that the language on a site be as simple as
  appropriate for that site so that when it is read to a person - they will
  have the maximum chance of understanding it.   The phrase "as appropriate"
  was added since there are sites ranging everywhere from shopping (where very
  straight forward language can and should be used) to thermodynamics and
  particle physics (where more complex language is required).
[snip]
  Is there something that you think we should do besides:
  
  1) making sure all text is electronic (so that it can be read to the user by
  their browser)
  
  2) encouraging the use of graphics on a page  and
  
  3) keeping the language as simple as possible

Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2000 01:37:52 UTC