RE: WHat makes Icons accessible or not?

Emmanuelle,

	Good work on the icons!

	With the color background, the homogeneity works somewhat, but without it,
the icons are too homogeneous. One has to look too long at the icon to
figure out what it means ... If I were to use these icons to find specifics
on what I wanted to do, with my aging memory (cough, cough, drool), I'd
need a key on the page to remind me what they mean, tho the alt tags would
help too .... 

Perhaps that suggests a checkpoint or technique for the use of icons - to
include an icon key for the site and perhaps on each page, and top and
bottom of long pages (there goes that redundency need again) .... at least
until the icons become iconic...

				Anne

At 11:32 PM 5/1/01 +0200, Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>In my opinion, humble although based on 9 years of university studies, the
>best option is the second series of icons that I find perfect from a
>conceptual and iconographic point of view, the best thing that has seen for
>a long time.
>
>Just as William has said, so that an icon ends up being such, the
>fundamental thing is that it is popularized. But if when he speaks of the
>"market" he refers to this list, it is evident that the market prefers the
>first series. In spite of I will expose it my reasons to prefer the second:
>
>Objective public: It is a specialized public, the document he/she doesn't go
>to the public in general.
>
>Homogeneity: So much in the graphic style as in the "language" that is used
>to transmit the information. The second series maintains the homogeneity.
>
>Size: The second series has a standard size of 32 x 32 (the first one not).
>The ideal thing would be to get that design in 16 x16.
>
>The color: The second series is more discreet. If what is wanted is that
>besides for what represents the image it is easy to distinguish the icons
>for colors, you can use a color bottom.
>
>I have created a page to show the difference among the two options:
>http://www.sidar.org/iconstatag/iconstatag.htm
>
>And it follows me seeming more appropriate the series without bottom color,
>because the same as when the third series is used, it is too attractive and
>it can end up tiring the view.
>Defects that I find in the other two series:
>The first series presents little homogeneity, it is seemingly simple but it
>really contains too many lines.
>The second, the size believes that it is more appropriate, but the icons 2,
>3 and 4 are less clear and direct semantically speaking.
>
>I hope these observations are useful.
>
>Regards,
>Emmanuelle
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]En
>nombre de Charles McCathieNevile
>Enviado el: martes, 01 de mayo de 2001 10:37
>Para: WAI GL
>Asunto: WHat makes Icons accessible or not?
>
>
>Hi folks,
>
>currently in the Authoring Tool group we are working on adding some basic
>icons to our techniques docuement, to identify which techniques are relevant
>for what kind of tools.
>
>There is a bit of a discussion on icons - at the moent we have had three
>sets
>of icons offered. So I wonder if people candraw any ideas that explain which
>ones are good, and why / why not.
>
>For convenience I have put the stuff into a web page:
>http://www.w3.org/2001/04/atag-icon-check - that includes the three sets of
>icons mixed up in a fragment of what we use it for, so they can be seen in
>context. I have to apologies for the fact that although longdesc links are
>defined they currently lead to empty resources. I hope I will fix that
>today,
>but I hoped I would publish this page last week so I am not too optimistic
>about it happening immediately.
>
>cheers
>
>chaals
>
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
>134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617
>258 5999
>Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
>(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>France)
>
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2001 17:57:10 UTC