- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 09:03:22 -0400
- 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 >criteria. 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 Anne L. Pemberton http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert apembert@crosslink.net Enabling Support Foundation http://www.enabling.org
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 1999 10:45:12 UTC