- From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 18:38:34 -0400 (EDT)
- To: inx <inx@ryoma.i-kochi.or.jp>
- cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
for an aural text, black on black is nice. On Tue, 5 May 1998, inx wrote: > DL: Hello, I'm new here. My name is Davey Leslie, I'm in Japan. > Anyway... > > > > RD:: "I maintain it's better to have too much information than not > > enough..." > > DL: Ah, hmm, well... I'm trying to figure this out, because it's clearly > important, but I go round and round on this issue. When sighted people view a > graphic layout, there are subtle visual cues that let us know "oh, this is > important; this is not." Our eyes do not move in a linear fashion, but > instead, scan the page and pick out the useful bits quickly. As designers, we > use this fact to our advantage-- perhaps it's even one of our main tools. But > then we come to the aural user. If we include a paragraph of description for > each and every graphic, aren't we warping the relationships between the > different bits of information, and, in effect, challenging the aural user to > wade through the swamp of information and pick out the useful bits? Isn't > there a point of information overload? Isn't a "clean" text-only page better? > Is a wall of information really better? I really don't know. (And then I start > to wonder, "hmm.. what would be a really cool aural page?") > > -- > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > inx: english by design > inx@ryoma.i-kochi.or.jp > TEL (0888) 44-0352 FAX (0888) 44-6251 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Hands-On-Technolog(eye)s touching the internet voice: 1-(301) 949-7599 poehlman@clark.net ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman http://www.clark.net/pub/poehlman
Received on Monday, 4 May 1998 18:38:38 UTC