universal design of 'next' button

At 03:48 PM 2000-12-14 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>
>However, here's a new wrench:
>Anne suggested that in my example for checkpoint 1.1 of a right arrow that 
>links to the next slide in a slide set, that the image ought to contain the 
>text "Next." 
>[<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000OctDec/0478.html%5D>h
ttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000OctDec/0478.html] In 
>this case, does this qualify as a "graphical function"?
>

AG::

Not new.

Not graphical function.

The semantics, here, are primarily operational (move to next page in series).

The icon and the word 'next' are, either of them, generally sufficient to
evoke
this semantic.  Just not generally enough.  Neither of them is universally
accessible.  So we want to have both.

Yes it is valuable to have the text in the icon.  This is blending the
modes of
communication.  This is more important for the quantitative effectiveness of
the curb cut effect (benefit to the non-disabled of having both text and
image)
than it is critical to the access safety net (avoid all-out failure for people
with disability).  The safety net is complete so long as there is text and
there is image.  The example should still be a universal design that makes the
most effective use of the text and image, not merely satisfies the minimum
requirement of "failure to shut people out."

Many Aps have UI preferences as to whether to show icons, words, or both.

The 3.1 rewrite as it stands is valid for this example.  The function of the
word in this case is not primarily visual, it is primarily verbal.  The best
case is still that the icon is drawn by SVG which takes the text from its
internal text content.  An acceptable compromise is that the icon is a
bitmapped image and the text is mirrored in the ALT attribute for the button. 
[discussion of ALT vs. TITLE suppressed.]

Am I reading the rewrite right?

Al

PS:  This reminds me of one of my hobby-horses I have been failing to spit
out.  Where the content guidelines presently talk about other stuff
'supplementing' textual information, they should rather say that the other
modes of expression should be used in a way that 'complements' the verbal
expression captured as standard text.  While text is first among equals in
providing supplemental materials specifically for access, the overall
universal
design of multimedia includes all cases of leader/follower/peer relationships
among the different ways (verbal, visual, auditory, smellyvision, ...) of
expressing content.  The general model is therefore symmetrical, and we should
use the symmetrical language "they complement each other" as opposed to the
polarized "one supplements the other" in the top level view.

The media expression of the 'next' function here is a good archtypal example: 
Neither the icon nor the word is dependent on the presence of the other;
either
is sufficient in and of itself in the main.  The communication
effectiveness is
broadened to cover the preponderance of people with disabilities by providing
redundant media expressions using both text language and icon.  The redundancy
increases the effectiveness of communication with people without articulable
disabilities in fact.  This 'curb cut effect' is because even 'though many
people fail to have functional impairments to the level recognized as a
disability, they still have marked differences that make the icon communicate
better for some and the word communicate better for others.  The time to
comprehend and the errors in comprehension are measurably reduced for the
general population without respect to disability.  In this quantitative
measurement, I would expect there to be a statistically significant
improvement
for the icon with text embedded over the icon used in such a way that it took
user action or assistive technology to get at the text.  That is to say I
would
lay money that a competent independent Human Factors experiment would confirm
what Anne has said.

Al

Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 16:55:12 UTC