RE: Illustrating Guidelines

Dear Anne (et al.)

First of all, let me say that I very much like your work at URL:
<http://users.erols.com/stevepem/guidelines/G3/g3.html>

AP> I guess this means I met your and Bruce's challenge to prove that even
AP> the guidelines can be illustrated! 

My challenge was more on the order that illustrations can not adequately
REPLACE text.

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

I like the addition of illustrations.  Ascetically, I find such "eye candy"
very appealing and inviting -- and I am all for it.  From a content point of
view, in terms of the WCAG 2 guidelines, I don't know that they add anything
of real value.  I don't think they meet your initial stated objective.
(1)  The graphics do not "stand on their own".  Without the accompanying
body text, the illustrations are fairly vague and meaningless.  Without
looking at the ALT text, I wasn't sure what they were suppose to be showing!
Don't get me wrong, I think the graphics are about as good as they could be.
I think this just reinforces the thesis that some concepts and ideas are not
well communicated pictorially.
(2)  With the exception of the first (which includes a "zoom in" feature),
the images include a great deal of graphical text.  If someone can't read,
these "illustrations" are no more meaningful than the body text!

On the other hand, the examples (George Washington / The Battle of New
Orleans) have, to me, much more meaningful illustrations.  But then again,
they use photographs.

I agree with William's sentiments:

WL> Illustrations are acceptable for all, useful for many, mandatory for
some.
WL> The details don't really matter. Once the very first example (checkpoint

WL> 3.1) is seen it is clear that the skills of a specialist can make this 
WL> "principle" an integral part of WCAG 2.
WL> I fervently hope that this sort of thing will pervade W3C space soon.

I will save my reservations for two of Williams more recent posts...





> ----------
> From: 	Anne Pemberton
> Sent: 	Wednesday, May 9, 2001 5:47 PM
> To: 	love26@gorge.net; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: 	Re: Illustrating Guidelines
> 
> Thanks, William,
> 
> 	I guess this means I met your and Bruce's challenge to prove that
> even the
> guidelines can be illustrated! <grin> Next step is to make this important
> enough so that, as a start, government sites can be made usable to a
> greater portion of the tax-paying public. 
> 
> By the way, does this bring us any closer to being able to state in one of
> the guidelines that, just as all componants need a text equivalent, all
> text must be illustrated ???  
> 
> Earcons are an interesting concept, but a more compact file than *.wav
> needs to become available to create them... I'm not sure if MP3 would be
> more usable. *.Mid files are more compact than *.wav files, but you can't
> put voice on midi. Rose, my librarian colleague, is always on the look out
> for web sites where the story is 1) presented in text, 2) illustrated AND
> 3) read aloud to the user .... they are still few and far between ...
> Until
> IE and NN include speech readers, there will be a need for development of
> human voice reading of text. Perhaps that need could be woven into the
> guideline for "simple and clear language" ... for those who simply cannot
> write their essays any lower on a numeric reading scale, suggest they
> include a sound file of the author reading the text on the page.... 
> 
> 				Anne
> 
> PS: William, had a sound issue with one of my special children. A severely
> cognitively disabled child from a syndrom that make her brittle about any
> changes, had to move to a new computer (her usual one was retired), and
> the
> first problem was sound - she pulled the large earphones off in less than
> a
> minutes, lasted 3 minutes with the small ones, but relaxed and tried the
> new game when I hooked up a set of speakers ... she surprised us all by
> handling 1) the sound experiments, 2) change in game, and 3) change from
> one to two-button mouse, all in one session! Changes that in "real life"
> are catastrophic to such children, can be taken in stride when they are
> "technology", once the child is thoroughly comfortable with "technology"
> ... there is no telling what changes will be wrought in the future!
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> At 06:47 AM 5/9/01 -0700, William Loughborough wrote:
> >At 06:26 AM 5/9/01 -0400, Anne Pemberton wrote:
> >>Oops, sorry
> >
> >Speaking only for myself I would apologize for taking so long to 
> >acknowledge the "Pemberton Principle" - which you already knew: 
> >Illustrations are acceptable for all, useful for many, mandatory for
> some.
> >
> >They are "refusable" for those who don't like/want/need them and this is 
> >nice from a privacy/privelege/priority view.
> >
> >The details don't really matter. Once the very first example (checkpoint 
> >3.1) is seen it is clear that the skills of a specialist can make this 
> >"principle" an integral part of WCAG 2. I hold little hope that much of
> the 
> >kind can be done with earcons/sounds because the implementations of those
> 
> >possibilities is still so primitive.
> >
> >I fervently hope that this sort of thing will pervade W3C space soon.
> >
> >--
> >Love.
> >                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
> >
> >
> Anne Pemberton
> apembert@erols.com
> 
> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
> 
>