Re: Errata for WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1 (i.e. the text in images issue)

At 06:20 PM 12/14/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>Are you saying that "next" on arrows is unnecessary, required, or what?

None of the above. I'm saying that to single out arrows as having to be 
learned and taught in a context that implies that the word "next" *doesn't* 
have to be learned and taught is absurd. I doubt that Anne regarded this 
kind of response as "dismissive" but if so - sorry all to Hell.

The fact is that the little logos proliferating the top of what I type into 
right now is completely indecipherable to me even though I use it for 
several hours a day. For me there's a little drawing of what looks sort of 
like the old "in-box" with an arrow pointing down into it. The arrow is 
superimposed on what is probably an addressed envelope. Now two spaces to 
the left is a similar box with no arrow/envelope but the word "in" above 
it. I know from experience that the first one I described dials the phone 
if I'm not connected to my ISP and that the other I almost never have to 
use because it's sort of always on, including at the bottom of the screen. 
To pretend that all these things are somehow "natural" or "intuitive" is 
un-sane. They are all part of some nightmare of "make-work" that involved 
artists, programmers, marketeers, and a huge company called QualComm that 
now owns a sports stadium - but no matter how hard they try, I still have 
to learn and be taught what it all "means". Personally I'd rather have just 
had some words up there but all my right-brained pals think it "looks 
nicer" with little pictures, so that's what I get.

Meanwhile if I want to kid Anne about whether arrows require more teaching 
than "next" I will do so and she hasn't expressed any particular outrage or 
taken any special exception to my behavior. The "proof" as to which (just 
text, just arrow, text with picture of arrow, arrow with pop-up "tool tip", 
or none of the above) is "better" is probably not even determinable. 
Different strokes, and all that. To me a mouse is completely absurd 
compared to a touch screen but the option isn't practically available.

If it comes time to vote, I think an arrow with the word "next" on it is 
OK. I think an arrow with a legend saying what's next is OK. I think a 
plain arrow is OK. I think the word "next" by itself is OK. I think a ">" 
is OK. I get used to the previously described icon (representing what in a 
previous context took an image of a telephone with the word "winsock" under 
it to represent) dialing the modem, or whatever it dials.

That's why I mostly don't vote, because to me it doesn't make a lot of 
difference. Bush/Gore is like icon/text - in the end one just adapts.

In answer to the topmost question I guess I don't think "next" on arrows is 
"necessary" in the sense that water is necessary. I'm certainly not saying 
it's "required" and find that notion incredible,

So if it's a three-part multiple choice question, I pick "what?". Do I win? 
(the penalty for taking me to task is that you have to delete two copies of 
this like I did because you neglected to realize that addressing it to me 
and to GL gave me a "two delete" task. I spared Wendy and Anne that torture).

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 22:19:03 UTC