- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:01:17 -0700
- To: Lila Laux <llaux@uswest.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
LL:: [referencing http://rdf.pair.com/guide.htm ] ...the animated graphics are a bad idea from a pure human factors perspective - they are irritating and draw attention away from the information on the page (it's hard for people to keep their attention from being drawn to something moving). WL: About my only "excuse" (rationalization?) for using the animated icons is to illustrate by example that their inclusion: a) doesn't break the guidelines; b) that the guidelines don't preclude use of absurd gimmicks. Your point about their attracting attention is probably valid but I've chosen to take that risk because of some (misplaced, fanciful?) notion of subliminal communication. The height of the backgrounds for the H2's being forced by the icon inclusions is something I'll address. What is of more interest to me at this time is the content and how well this "guide" could be used by someone to actually gain some understanding of and friendship with the guidelines. I hope to make the overall WCAG document less daunting, principally by presenting bits of it in lieu of its overwhelming entirety. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 12:01:39 UTC