- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:22:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Graham Oliver <graham_oliver@yahoo.com>
- cc: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I think it is a common mistake to expect people will understand all image-based content straight off. There are some widely recognised icons (a big yellow 'M' in a particular font is apparently recognised as a place to buy something to eat by more people in the world than any other single icon) and there are more complex graphic presentations that are rapidly understood by being in a context. And there is poorly designed graphics (the visual equivalent of excessively long sentences, or ambiguous phrasing) almost everywhere one looks. My understanding is that for many people graphics are more rapidly understood than text, and perhaps just as importantly much more easily recognised a second or third time. Can anyone provide pointers to real research - I know there are people on this list who have done some... chaals On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Graham Oliver wrote: [snip] In response to your post I went to the site and of the 5 images on the top right of the site. [snip] the only one that 'made sense' to me first off (without having to look at the associated tool tip) was the Television. That may or may not be relevant (I don't know) because I guess we all need to go through the learning curve of associating an image with a concept. The images are a relief from the huge amount of text however <grin>
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 08:22:51 UTC