Re: WHat makes Icons accessible or not?

my responses to Dave's comments marked CMN

  1. What can we offer a low vision user?
    Something like click on the icon to get a bigger view?
    Or link to a page which describes what they are all about
    with text and images?

CMN A browser that zooms well would seem to be smarter. I also intend to have
the final icons available in a way that they can be easily enlarged -
combinations of SVG, CSS, and other useful technology...

  2. For a blind user, need both explicit alt text, and header explaining
    the (apparently) useless images, why they are there etc?

CMN Yes - the most appropraite seems to have the key to the icons as part of
the definitions of terms (Hmmm, I am not sure taht they are marked up
properly at the moment) that they represent, and then indeed have decent alt
- see also Adam's thread on the topic
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001AprJun/0271

  General (personal comment). If they are all on one page, they would
  be more aesthetically pleasing if all the same size.

CMN defintiiely. Each set so far developed has a consistent size, there are
just different sizes used as a default by different authors.

  I have nominal to crap vision, and I'm OK with the larger ones.
  I'd suggest that size is not too intrusive, yet is very clear in
  terms of the visual content.

CMN I have reasonable vision (i.e. if I want to see well I wear glasses, but
I normally don't and wasn't too worried when I lost them - it took two years
to get around to needing replacements). I find that the slightly larger icons
are a more helpful size, byut I agree with Jan that it is important that they
are workable in a size no bigger than 16x16 pixels for people who are really
just interested in reading the text in a relativel compact form.

Cheers

Charles McCN

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 04:33:32 UTC