- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 23:08:19 -0400
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Chas,
Back from my weekend, and re-reading what I read on the road ....
Your term "superfluous" is problematic. While you demonstrated on
your "ugly page", what you may mean, it isn't at all certain that you are a
person who could clearly distinguish between what is "superfluous" to one
person, but useful to another ...
Chas, you urged me to get better acquainted with the problems and
challenges of programmers who may have to dip into graphical design. I
spent the weekend getting better acquainted with a programmer who is also a
skilled graphical designer (in bytes, not on paper) .... She had to study
the "guidelines", probably version 1.0 in her course work, and was truly
shocked that the W3C's WAI may be having difficulties accepting the basic
needs for graphics, especially in the disabled population (she was a
teacher before she became a programmer), but in the educational community
and general public as well. Perhaps I can prevail upon her to join the
effort here???
Anne
At 01:51 PM 8/31/01 -0700, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>Chas:
>The above example says "if someone came and collected all your food." The
>key word here is "all." I have never said, nor will I, that all graphics
>should be removed from the Web. I have said that superfluous graphic should
>be avoided.
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 23:13:47 UTC