- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:14:36 -0700
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Kynn, Overall, I like what you are doing with my suggestions ... At 12:35 PM 10/25/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote: >Anne, what sort of instructions should we write on how and when to >illustrate something? My initial thoughts are: > >* Provide enough illustration so that a user who is unable to > read the text of the page can at least guess at the functionality > from the graphics with a high degree of reliability More than the functionality, the user needs to know what the topic of the page is. The first or main illustration for a page should indicate the topic as much as possible. Functionality is important, if the user is to search further on the site, but if they don't know the topic other than whatever keyword was used to search it (none, if the link was supplied by another user in e-mail, etc.) If a site is about "accessibility" or "disability", an icon of a wheelchair is pretty easily understood ... biographies should have a picture of the person discussed ... topics that include a concrete object will be easier to illustrate than abstracts, but most topics have been illustrated somewhere by someone in some media, and others can copy. A late thought ... illustrations may be best if captions are included and/or references made to them in the body of the text ... problem is that captions may constitute another column of text on a page which may not linearize properly ... but captions help combine "the best of both worlds" to put a graphic into meaningful text ... I suspect that showing the alt tag on the page would immensely aide some folks with learning disabilities ... if the alt tag would appear as a caption on a page without flummoxing the speech readers, it could be the best of both worlds...! and help encourage proper use of the alt tag. >* Design to allow navigation via graphics by non-textual users The best navigation graphics will have text on them so there is no ambiguity. An arrow for "forward" or "back" should have the word "next", and "back" on the arrows. The reason for this is a tendency with a lot of learning disabled persons to have difficulties with direction. Putting the word with the icon "cements in" what is there. (Hmmmm... will this re-open the debate on what text in graphics needs to be?) >* When providing "raw information", consider ways to add graphics > to aid in comprehension -- for example, add icons in additional > to textual information in tables Good addition, Kynn ... My husband (dyslexic) spends a lot of online time pouring over tables of data on trains (his hobby), and usually selects the line to study based on the graphic in the first column, usually a picture of the described engine. Column headings are another place where a icon can save words. (typically, he clicks on the image, looks at it large, smalls it, and then read the table, returning to the image after reading ...) >>2) write in the simplist language possible, > >What sort of guidelines can we write for this? Hmmmm.... avoid passive voice, for starters ... keep sentences short ... put definitions on links. Define all "vocabulary words" (topic-specific words, for those outside education)... perferably in a link so that after the definition is read and understood, the user can return and re-read the sentence of paragraph from whence he came ... >* Remember that writing simply is _not_ "writing down"; in fact, > it takes greater skill to communicate to all audiences than to > a highly technical or specialized audience. Yes, indeed. The first time I taught Kindergarteners, I carefully explained that inside the CPU were a lot of silicone chips that worked like their own brain. Next week, I had to run down an old CPU to open up in class, because almost half the kids thought I meant there were potato chips inside the big box! ... >* Create a simple summary of content which is longer than (some > measure of length); include this length as both a visible summary > and in the META DESCRIPTION tag for the page. Yes, yes, yes ... As a minimum the summary could be a solid sentence as a single paragraph, or a moderate paragraph, preceding and separated from the rest of the document perhaps by size, color, etc. >This is a good idea. Do you think that some sort of icon would be >useful for this? Maybe a little open book after such a link? The >difficulty is distinguishing a definition link from an ordinary >link; there needs to be a visible distinction made for usability's >sake. Naturally we can't -mandate- something for all pages out there >but we can definitely -suggest- alternatives. Hmmmmm.... I guess it depends on whether the page is mostly information, or mostly access to other sites ... or becomes half and half ... Maybe it's because the first use I ever saw of hyperlink (Mac hyperstack) showed an instructional text in which all "vocabulary words" were defined wherever they appeared in the "glossary" ... and it's rare to find use of glossary since the early days of the web ... sadly ... >Now, here's the next topic for us to ponder: > > How can we make web interactions -- such as forms, searching, > e-commerce -- more accessible to people who have cognitive > disabilities or reading difficulties? Let me think on this and the rest of your questions, and talk to hubby and his sister, who both use the web, tho neither has ever made an e-commerce transaction, tho each's spouse has ... As to forms, I'm the form filler-outer in the family, whether the form is on paper or the web ... tho hubby will do phone menus which I hate ... As a high school teacher, I used to discuss with students the merits of marrying someone with an different type of dysability ... Anne 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 Wednesday, 25 October 2000 20:23:54 UTC