- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:42:56 -0400
- To: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, <apembert45@lycos.com>, "Jonathan Chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Marja-Riitta Koivunen" <marja@w3.org>
Matt and all, Apologies! My last response should have gone to Matt privately. Anne At 09:58 AM 4/23/01 -0700, Matt May wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert45@lycos.com> >> Incidently, I have a difficult time with so much said and inferred that >sound and multi-media are mis-used on the web. It is distressing to see how >often something that displeases or doesn't appeal a person is judged >"mis-used". One man's useless is another man's essential. > >MM I didn't say multimedia displeased or didn't appeal to me. I said I've >run scientific tests which show that multimedia sites such as those >demonstrated by Jonathan are less usable than standard HTML-based web pages, >due to inconsistency, non-discoverability and distraction, and this is >consistent with other research in the field of web usability. It's not a >personal opinion. > >Multimedia sites are designed not to look or function like one another, >which turns the navigation process from something learned by repetition into >something that needs to be re-learned at every page. Additionally, sites >like these obscure information by not being searchable (the text inside is >not only invisible to screen readers and text browsers, it can't be parsed >by search engines either). Yes, they look nicer and some people prefer them >on subjective criteria, but nothing that's been suggested here leads to an >objective statement that multimedia treatments of all the pages on the web >aid the accessibility of the whole web. Much less how to make >non-educational or non-entertainment sites accessible in this manner. > >- >m > > Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 18:35:56 UTC