- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:37:39 -0400
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), Lila Laux <llaux@uswest.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Myself, I liked very much William's site that included graphics. The result is a much more inviting presentation. The criticism of the animated graphics as a "bad idea" is misplaced. The first time I viewed the page, I didn't even notice there was animation until I had gone through the whole page and returned to the top to look it over a second time noting the details including the animation. Not all people, and not even all "visual" people, are "distracted" by animation. Motion is a part of life. Compared to the original, all text, no color, no graphics presentation, this version is very inviting and gives the impression that accessibility is do-able without throwing away the baby with the bath water. Anne At 09:01 PM 9/11/2000 -0700, William Loughborough wrote: >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. > Anne L. Pemberton http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling apembert@crosslink.net Enabling Support Foundation http://www.enabling.org
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 07:32:39 UTC