Re: Illustrating Guidelines

I'm trying to reconcile to the notion that text is repurposable but
illustrations are not. I'm not seeing the distinction. 

Letters and words in text can be reused in any variety of situations,
changed and re-ordered to change the meaning and convey something
different. But so can illustrations. Illustrations (as defined in SVG, for
example) consists of lines, shapes, and colors that can be re-ordered to
change the meaning and convey something different. 

If by "repurposable" you mean the fact that if a user has some fancy
equipment, they can have the text read to them as well as reading it for
themselves, this is interesting, but since the equipment is not universally
available, I'm not sure that text is really all the repurposable. For most
users, the text is available in just one format, typically visual. 

It may be true that this group is unique in not "needing" illustrations,
but there have been difficulties in communicating the needs outside the
group. Why? Because it isn't illustrated? Perhaps.

Does the fact that we have only worked in text before mean that we have to
continue the same way? No, I didn't spend the time showing that
illustration is possible and useful just so folks could say, "that's nice"
without changing their thinking or action. In this instance, I have used
the illustrations in two purposes - the first, to make the meaning of the
guidelines more understandable, and the second to demonstrate the utility
of illustrations in general. 

I have been very surprised that there has been no discussion about the
content of any of my illustrations. 

					Anne






Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

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

Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 07:02:33 UTC