- From: Neil Morris <neil@pop3.poptel.org.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:53:50 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Cc: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, "'Meg Ross'" <Meg@digitalMeg.com>, Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
It may be worth checking out some of the work that widget software have done around symbols. They have a web page at http://www.widgit.com/ While symbols are not the answer for everyone (you often need to learn what they mean!), they may be a useful resource. It is also worth noting that the people I work with often prefer photos to symbols Widgit have graphic designers who have been producing symbols for many years. Cheers Neil Morris In message <3.0.5.32.20010522165705.00814100@pop.erols.com>, Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com> writes >Bruce, > > First of all, while William is working with earcons, I have not worked >with icons. I have worked with illustrations. There is a world of >difference in them, both as to use and in how they are made. Icons would >require drawing skills I don't have and/or software and hardware that I >don't have. As I thought about what was needed to illustrate Guideline 3, I >hit on the idea of showing the pages with sections marked, which I could do >with what I had available. > > Icons are useful a quick reference marks in the content and are used to >find pertinent sections of content, while the illustrations share the same >purpose >as the text content. The same icon may appear in many places, but an >illustration would be specific to a certain text content. > > I do agree that the W3C icons should be in the smallest color palette that >they can use. Yes, the icons, after they have been developed and approved, >should be done in SVG. If they can be developed in SVG that would save >time, but I don't know if Meg has the software and skill yet to work in SVG >from the git-go. Since her web page shared her comparisons of gif and jpg, >I suspect she may not be ready to create in SVG. I'm not sure of the >benefits of PNG ... > > Anne > > > >At 10:11 AM 5/22/01 -0400, Bailey, Bruce wrote: >> My thoughts: <> No insult intended to Anne or William (both >>of whom have done a great job in leading us towards this end), but plainly >>if we include icons, they should be done professionally! Owing to recent >>threads, I feel compelled to point out that icons of this sort do NOT make >>content accessible to non-readers. From reading Meg's notes, I am >>confident that she can produce excellent work within the constraints I >>propose: "" See note below for my rant/justification*. Images (that >>don't completely fill a rectangular area) should have a transparent >>background and NOT a white background (or other color chosen to match the >>default page background color). Should we take the high road and insist >>on SVG only? Thanks. -- Bruce "" "" This problem also highly >>correlates with the reasons for cringing anytime a content author tells >>their visitors to set their resolution to 800x600 (or higher). ---------- >>From: Wendy A Chisholm >>Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 5:11 PM >>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >>Subject: Graphic Designers work - potential for WCAG? Hello all, >>As I mentioned a few weeks ago at a teleconference, I've been looking for a >> I >>began discussing possibilities with one person last week, Meg. She put >>together a page that shows icons and screen shots she has designed >> It is at: >>http://www.digitalmeg.com/wcag/ I was thinking she could create icons for >>each checkpoint and guideline to >> If someone clicked on the icon they would >> I sent her Anne's work, but we >>haven't had a chance to discuss it yet. I'll be talking with her again >>this week, any questions you would like me >>to ask her? My proposal: >>I'll ask her to illustrate checkpoint 1.1 to see what she comes up >> We can then talk about it. Thoughts? >>--w >>-- >>wendy a chisholm >>world wide web consortium >>web accessibility initiative >>seattle, wa usa >>tel: +1 206.706.5263 >>/-- >> >Anne Pemberton >apembert@erols.com > >http://www.erols.com/stevepem >http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 > > -- Neil
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 04:55:19 UTC