- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:25:40 -0400
- To: "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@erols.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD0022DAF31@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>
Dear Anne, > Thanks, Bruce. I really did put a lot of energy into it, and not enough > time to make hubby growl over the project... It shows. I've fiddled around with graphics enough to know how time consuming this kind of work is. >> 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> > > >>> I guess this > >>> means I met your [WL] and Bruce's challenge to prove that even > >>> the guidelines can be illustrated! > >> My challenge was more on the order > >> that illustrations can not adequately REPLACE text. > > > You are confusing illustrations with symbolism. Illustrations, by > definition, illustrate something, often text ... Pictures, painting, > drawings, maps, and other graphic types can be illustrations, or they may > stand as content on their own depending on their complexity. No, but we are being fairly loose with our terms. I believe the word comes from "illuminated drawings" and were originally used in hand-transcribed bibles to help a largely illiterate population remember the stories they had heard aurally. The images you have on your site above, despite their large size, are closer to computer icons than to a painting. They are useful to the document because they provide visual book marks and as reminders of the content. How much they aid with comprehension, I could not say. Some people really like that kind of thing (like Lisa S.) while others find them either distracting, wasteful of space, or unprofessional. Most of us, I suspect, are rather neutral. In the best case, we are debating P3 levels of accessibility. I understood that the objective of this exercise was to present an example of how illustrations can be used to make even a technical document of some value to a non-reader. If this was the case, I don't believe that you have succeeded. The images chosen are highly textual. They may be nice for most people -- but are of extremely limited (at best) to the intended target audience. > An aside: One of the few sites I have on my links page for the kids that is > used independently by first graders is a site that displays a satellite > view of a spot on the site map ... needs no reading by the user to use it > to get a very interesting picture which is a interesting to scientists as > to my first graders ... (how often is text able to span such a group of > users?)<grin> No one is debating that pictures aren't "nice". The question is how much dare we make them a "requirement". Sure, most of us doodle and we learn to draw as kids, but very few of us get paid for producing computer-oriented art. Most of write as part of jobs, so we are comfortable sharing our words. In spite of all the bandwidth, I don't believe that this conversation has gotten beyond "make your site attractive and easy to use".
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 09:26:22 UTC