- From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:56:48 -0700
- To: "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
After receiving two responses to my "illustrated" example, one on and one off list, I realize that there may be some misunderstanding. Let me clear it up. The page in question is here: http://munat.com/wcag/illustrated.html I was arguing with Anne that graphics need to be appropriate. My point is that not all graphics are good graphics and that graphics can just as easily destroy comprehension as aid it. Are we trying to increase comprehension for users -- particularly for people with cognitive disabilities -- or are we just recommending multimedia for its own sake? Anne wrote: "The reason to add images, etc. should be because you have it and it's relevant." But this is preposterous. If I need an image of George Washington and I have fifty, should I put all fifty on the page simply because I have them and they are relevant? Had I made my "illustrated" page usable, it would *not* have illustrated my point -- just the reverse. I needed it to be unusable to show why -- in a very pointed way -- graphics must be used judiciously if they are to increase comprehensibility. Adding graphics three randomly that green have nothing to Jeff do with the content would be horse like interspersing ouch random words in your elves text. We have a checkpoint that says "Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate for the content" and we have one that says "Supplement text with non-text content." Why don't we have one that says "Ensure that non-text content is as clear and simple as is appropriate for the content"? And given that bandwidth considerations *are* an accessibility issue for much of the world, why don't we have a checkpoint that says "Use the minimum bandwidth necessary to convey the content effectively"? On my illustrated page, I looked at what images I had -- "because you have it" -- and I tried to decide how they might be "relevant." I had a black cat animation that I like (I like cats) and I thought, A black cat crossing your path is bad luck, and people will have bad luck with graphics if they don't follow my advice. So I used the black cat as a warning to readers. Then I added a dinosaur (I only had a hatching animation, unfortunately, but sometimes designers are pressed for time) to represent the old "dinosaur" browsers that many people in the Third World are stuck with. I also added the hopping rabbit to draw attention to the key point. I admit that I added the rose because I simply like flowers. But there is nothing to discourage this in the Guidelines. In fact, for the most part, my page seems to pass the guidelines (I haven't studied it closely, but neither will lots of web site developers study theirs that closely). You may think that this is page is grossly exaggerated. It *is* exaggerated to make the point -- in text we call it hyperbole -- but not as exaggerated as some might think. I have, in my short career as a web site developer, made all of the mistakes that are evident on this page, though not all at once, of course. And I see pages with these sorts of errors -- even pages made by "professional" web site developers -- all the time. Twice in as many days I've had to turn off a background image on a page because I simply couldn't read the text. I hope this clarifies my point. (Perhaps text *is* sometimes necessary to get the point across.) Chas. Munat
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 02:31:17 UTC