- From: Julia Collins <julia@we3.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 15:04:42 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <B9C8A489.46CB%julia@we3.co.uk>
As a web designer with a graphics background and a strong interest in accessibility issues, I have been following this discussion with interest. My problem is with the term "eye candy" that is being bandied around- surely a strong visual design enhances all user experiences? (and yes, that does also include people who are totally blind, through the lively and descriptive use of alt tags) It helps navigation, makes points in a way that words sometimes cannot, (bear in mind alt tags again here...) and just makes the getting of information not a big old book reading experience. I, for one, haven't the mind to wander through yards of uninterrupted text. Accessibility isn't just about those with total blindness- it's also about people with other visual, sensory, motor and learning disabilities. Sure, there is a lot of mindless decoration out there that is a waste of bandwidth - and this has been a problem ever since the "democratisation" of the design process with products like publisher (for print) and the fact you can "publish" any old blather on the www whatever your skill levels with a bit of dreamweaver. Truly awful things have been done in ignorance that offend, make inaccessible or just look plain ugly. But like it or not, visual design for accessibility and usability is an important part of this discussion. Julia -- We3 print design web
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 10:00:35 UTC