- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:31:05 -0400
- To: "Paul Bohman" <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>, "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Paul,
I agree, and have probably said already too many times, that until
we say there is a need for illustrations we cannot begin to address the
issues of "how to" illustrate "clearly and simply" .... there are
times when a bad photo is better than nothing! (an example is my kids'
page of Famous Americans ... can't find a picture of one of the FA's the
kids have to learn about, Susan B. Anthony, because there are apparently no
pictures of her smiling ... so a drawing that shows a half smile, with the
"grouchy" pictures as back up, were the solution) .... not as "clear and
simple" as I would like the page to be ...but A picture is often better
than NO picture!
Anne
At 05:09 PM 8/24/01 -0600, Paul Bohman wrote:
> >Having a checkpoint about adding illustrations makes little sense to me
>unless there is also a checkpoint saying that we should make illustrations
>(and other "text equivalent content") clear and simple. Why is it only text
>that needs to be clear and simple?
>
>This is an excellent point. Now we enter into another quagmire: how to
>determine if an illustration is clear and simple.
>
>Potential barriers to clarity and simplicity include:
>
>cultural bias
>age-inappropriateness
>poor composition
>too many visual distractions
>poor contrast
>poor artistic abilities
>and many more, of course.
>
>Still, the issue is important (and has been brought up before): the quality
>of the alternative/equivalent needs to be high enough so that it can be as
>close to a true alternative/equivalent as possible.
>
>Paul Bohman
>Technology Coordinator
>WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
>www.webaim.org
>Utah State University
>www.usu.edu
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 20:51:17 UTC