One way of making things easy is to provide identifiers. We are almost
all used to the link "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" going
somewhere we expect, but "<fontfamily><param>Lucida Grande</param>شارل
مككثينبل" probably isn't helpful. On the other hand, a giant yellow
stylised M, in a particular font, on a red background, is allegedly
the most recognised symbol in the world. A particular script in white,
on a red background, underlined with a stylised white banner, is also
often associated with a drink even by people who can't tell what the
characters are.


Many organisations who use a text logo have a particular font  -
perhaps not even very legible - that they use to identify themselves.
A large computer company may have three letters in a font that could
never be considered clear, but can be identified by people who don't
know how to read latin script.</fontfamily>


For some people who are used to not reading, these graphic symbols are
a good way to identify things, and therefore to make clear what a link
target is. Lots of people think a small rectangle vertically in the
bottom of a square, with a triangle on top of it (and perhaps some
more decoration) represents the idea of page d'accueil, although as
Jonathan has mentioned before there are a number of non-readers who
see a picture of a green bus, and will wait all day at the stop
because the only buses that pass are red - many of these people are
surprised not to see a picture of where they live when they follow
this allegedly universal button.


As Tina points out, text information is the most useful to many people
in this context, but the graphics are also a strategy for solving what
might otherwise be impenetrable access barriers. This has been
recognised to the extent that you can go to court if someone else uses
"your" trademark, which implies that the idea is well-enough
understood for people to work out a system for protecting its use.


Hope that sort of helps to explain the idea.


Cheers


Chaals


On Sunday, Jan 18, 2004, at 19:06 Europe/Rome, Tina Holmboe wrote:


<excerpt>

On 18 Jan, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:


<excerpt>and others who may be severely graphically challenged, please
refer to: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/

</excerpt>

  I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. Could you help me by

  elaborating on your point ?




<excerpt>Maestro has many meanings, the graphic only one. This is true
for 

almost any text or graphic.

Furthermore many and possibly most users find it easier to remember a 

graphic.

finally everyone's doing it, well plenty are, so why not reflect the 

consensus in this instance?

</excerpt>

  I don't quite follow this either.




<excerpt>IMHO any page which fails to have a 'link to us' graphic
cannot be AAA 

rated.

</excerpt>

  Nor this. Could you possibly go into abit more detail, and help me to

  understand your conclusion ? I'm afraid that, as English is not my

  native language, I might be easily confused at times.


-- 

 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies

   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/

   [+46] 0708 557 905



</excerpt>--

Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar

charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org