RE: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)

At 3:13 PM -0400 2001/7/26, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>aloha, anne!
>thanks for playing in my sandbox!  four questions:
>1. is "RADAR" an acronym?  if so, do you know what it stands for?
>2. what is "AAMR"?

You'd have to ask the author this -- third party viewer's intent is
less valuable than author's!

>3. what is the foreground color/color of the text?  is it green as well?
>(that seems to be the motif)


>4. is the font used a serif or sans-serif font?

Serif, maybe something like Times New Roman.  Is that important?

>i suppose that no one who approaches the graphic with a tabula rasa would
>know the answers to the first 2 questions, which indicates to me that this
>particular graphic isn't a very successful conduit of information...

Not necessarily, it depends on (a) what it's meant to do, and (b) how
it is used.  Let's not assume that looking at a graphic in a background
can tell us anything about how useful it is!!

>oh, one more question:
>5. would you follow this link out of the blue?  if so, why?

If I was looking for RADAR at AAMR, then sure.

>i'm not sure i would if the alt text just said: "RADAR @ AAMR", which
>appears to be the literal textual equivalent for the graphic...  still,
>there is a checkpoint in WCAG1 (checkpoint 4.2) which recommends providing
>an expansion for acronyms and abbreviations where they first occur...

This is an effect of a broken spec for the <img> tag.  Currently
you can only do this:

      <img alt="RADAR @ AAMR" />

...or an expansion of the same.

But ideally you should be able to do:


The problem is that <img> is an empty tag when really it should be like


Kynn Bartlett <>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Tel +1 949-567-7006

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 17:54:17 UTC