W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: QED & Marshall McLuhan

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 09:03:22 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: Kelly Ford <kford@teleport.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 07:09 PM 6/8/1999 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 01:35 PM 6/8/1999 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>>	Went to the site to see what graphics were included with the story and
>>found none. Not even a Packer's helmet or a football (the Packers is a
>>football team, isn't it?? I'm totally sports-phobic except for Winston Cup
>>auto racing) to clue the reader who or what the story is about. 
>I'm not sure I understand your critique, is it about "how they
>could have done the story better" or is it about "accessibility
>of the story"?  It seems to me that saying they need a football
>on each page in order to make the site "accessible" is not really
>an issue of access but of editorial/artistic judgment and design

They need a "meaningful graphic", which could be any of several images. The
football was an example, a football helmet of the Packers, or any of many
symbols for the game would work about as well. 

>I have no idea how I would teach web designers that they MUST
>include footballs on all football related web pages in order to
>create accessible pages.  I am still completely lost and baffled
>by the concepts that people are trying to express about web
>sites being more accessible to those with cognitive disabilities
>or inability to read.

Not footballs on all football pages, but "meaningful graphics" for pages
that contain information of interest to a wide audience. 

Anne L. Pemberton
Enabling Support Foundation
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 1999 10:45:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:04 UTC