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

RE: simple & understandable

From: Steve Donie <sdonie@zycor.lgc.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:41:45 -0500
Message-ID: <9F147E391A3FD111B9A800805F356C525B8C41@lgcadev001.zycor.lgc.com>
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Minor nit to pick - it looks like you have chosen your own link color and
visited-link color. For me (using IE 5) it turns out that the colors you
have chosen are the _opposite_ of the default colors (that is, your link
color is the default visited-link color, and your visited-link color is the
default link color).

Makes things kinda confusing at first, because initially it looks to me like
I've visited all the links!


-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman@clark.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 1999 2:30 PM
To: Kynn Bartlett
Cc: Anne Pemberton; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: simple & understandable

I am using the latest and greatest with images off and didn't even
know there was an image.  gee, If I had wanted to bet to the links
right away, I might have been disapointed.  This is not an acess issue
but you might want to keep that in mind when designing your pages. 
some times, people will want an overview of the links on the page at
the outset like the image map provides but since you've put an
imagemap there it isn't presented to the non graphical user.

Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> At 09:50 AM 6/24/1999 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
> >I created a graphical presentation of the six major links on a site and
> >them all into one large graphic that fills most of the opening screen. So
> >far, the single image seems not to pose the problems that a set of seven
> >so graphics on the page would have caused.
> What do you see as the problems caused by seven graphics that are
> avoided by a single image?  I believe there are a number of
> benefits in _avoiding_ imagemaps whenever possible, and this
> case here would be an example of a time in which it's avoidable
> (and thus preferable to avoid).
> Some reasons include:
> * Better "packaging" of the content in scalable chunks
>   [Important for nonstandard screen displays such as palmsize PCs]
> * Access to individual image links are better supported in every
>   browser than access to imagemaps
>   [Important for non-graphics users of graphical browsers as well
>    as users of older versions of lynx]
> * Ease of maintenance -- if a new section must be added, it's just
>   a case of adding a new graphic rather than requiring a remake
>   of an imagemap
>   [Important for designer maintenance and design flexibility]
> * Imagemaps _lack contextual clues of link status_ because they
>   _do not display borders around hotspots_.  Granted, most graphics
>   these days are included with BORDER=0, but the use of user
>   defined cascading style sheets enable a visual user to turn those
>   borders back on if the visual clues are thought to be useful!
>   Which they _are_!
>   [Important for increasing comprehension of web site design among
>    users of graphical browsers, including cognitively disabled
>    users]
> >The new version of my page is at:
> >http://www.enabling.org/tryout
> >What else would be necessary to make the page at
> >http://www.enabling.org/tryout accessible to both text and non-text
> I would make the following changes:
> * Get rid of the imagemap and break it into a row of six images;
>   lose the radiating lines (unnecessary for the most part) and
>   I'd probably put the hand graphic above, not below, the other
>   icons for graphic design reasons.  (As an "identity icon" for
>   the page, it should be featured most prominently in the design.
>   Also, the use of the hand as a separate icon allows for that
>   particular graphic to be used as a link by someone who'd want
>   to link to the site, as Jonathan suggests.)
> * If you must keep the imagemap, please label it correctly with
>   ALT text on each area.  If your FrontPage does not support this,
>   then you may need to change web creation software and/or code
>   the imagemap by hand.
> * As a side note, FrontPage is including a LOT of very extraneous,
>   unnecessary HTML code -- such as tables for positioning -- which
>   bloats the size and complexity of what should be a simple page.
>   You may want to strip out as much as possible of that chaff, since
>   it may be locking your design into a specific screen resolution.
>   This has implications for users who have configured their screen
>   width and display properties to their _own_ needs -- such as low
>   vision users -- and may make the page harder for them to access,
>   as well as slower for everyone to load.
> * The links in your imagemap are repeated as text header links
>   lower in the page, which is good.  I would place a copy of the
>   picture next to each textual link, though, because it will
>   increase comprehension for "baseline" users as well as non-
>   textual users by associating the graphics above with the fuller
>   descriptive text used later in the page, increasing comprehension.
> There's my 2 cents worth.
> --
> Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
> President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
> AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/

Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
Touching The Internet:
Voice: 301.949.7599
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
Best of service
for your small business
network needs!

---sig off---
Received on Thursday, 24 June 1999 15:41:37 UTC

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