Re: Guide to Guidelines

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. 


At 09:01 PM 9/11/2000 -0700, William Loughborough wrote:
>LL:: [referencing ] ...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 
>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
Enabling Support Foundation

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 07:32:39 UTC