- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:08:43 -0700
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Cc: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), Lila Laux <llaux@uswest.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 07:37 AM 9/12/2000 , Anne Pemberton wrote: >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. However, this illustrates a fundamental problem with the animation itself -- if it _doesn't_ stand out, and if it _can't_ be noticed as animated, then it's not a good design element. The purpose of using animation, on the web, is to _make something stand out_. If an animation fails to do this, then it's clearly gratuitous! --Kynn, pretending he's a web designer -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Director of Accessibility, Edapta http://www.edapta.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 16:22:38 UTC