My esteemed colleague Paul doesn't really understand the issues involved in Web standards, as I wrote elsewhere. Nonetheless, I certainly support the Anything's Better than IE/Win Campaign ("Abby-Wink").
I was at the ATypI conference and attended both presentations by Kevin Larson, a Ph.D. in reading acquisition (a domain in cognitive psychology) who does in fact work for Microsoft.
Larson's first paper, on measuring the readability of ClearType, was poorly received by attendees, who virtually tore him limb from limb. "And that," he said then, "was the uncontroversial paper." The second presentation, which explained that the theory of word recognition by shape or outline is poorly supported by evidence, was one that I anticipated would lead to even greater bloodletting by the packed house of professional graphic and type designers, but in fact the enormous range of scientific papers Larson abstracted for us was entirely convincing.
I chatted with Larson and his colleagues at quite considerable length. He is a sincere person with a solid pedigree. It's difficult for average people to cross-check his many references (which were posted at the ATypI site), but based on the thoroughness of his presentation and my talking to him, I am willing to vouch for what he says.
The rather juvenile ad hominem attacks on this fellow are uncalled for here.
I certainly don't understand why Larson hasn't posted his whole PowerPoint presentations at Microsoft Typography, but perhaps we can persuade him. I didn't take notes in his two sessions because they required full attention and because I foolishly expected his own notes to be posted. Perhaps they will later.
As I explained to Larson, the world of professional graphic design has two periods: Before September 27, 2003 and after. We went from believing the word-shape theory (known as boumas after Bouma [pronounced "Bowma," not "Booma"], the Dutch psychologist) to believing the theory that has the greatest evidence. I call that rationality.
No. No law was passed in Australia mandating Web accessibility.
Tables are perfectly OK for accessibility if their content makes sense when linearized, as is usually the case in nice rectilinear content blocks. Also, every screen reader in common use save for OutSpoken for Macintosh handles tables (and frames) just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
My esteemed colleague Paul doesn't really understand the issues involved in Web standards, as I wrote elsewhere. Nonetheless, I certainly support the Anything's Better than IE/Win Campaign ("Abby-Wink").
Because the Narrator isn't a screen reader. Has nothing to do with "bias."
I was at the ATypI conference and attended both presentations by Kevin Larson, a Ph.D. in reading acquisition (a domain in cognitive psychology) who does in fact work for Microsoft.
Larson's first paper, on measuring the readability of ClearType, was poorly received by attendees, who virtually tore him limb from limb. "And that," he said then, "was the uncontroversial paper." The second presentation, which explained that the theory of word recognition by shape or outline is poorly supported by evidence, was one that I anticipated would lead to even greater bloodletting by the packed house of professional graphic and type designers, but in fact the enormous range of scientific papers Larson abstracted for us was entirely convincing.
I chatted with Larson and his colleagues at quite considerable length. He is a sincere person with a solid pedigree. It's difficult for average people to cross-check his many references (which were posted at the ATypI site), but based on the thoroughness of his presentation and my talking to him, I am willing to vouch for what he says.
The rather juvenile ad hominem attacks on this fellow are uncalled for here.
I certainly don't understand why Larson hasn't posted his whole PowerPoint presentations at Microsoft Typography, but perhaps we can persuade him. I didn't take notes in his two sessions because they required full attention and because I foolishly expected his own notes to be posted. Perhaps they will later.
As I explained to Larson, the world of professional graphic design has two periods: Before September 27, 2003 and after. We went from believing the word-shape theory (known as boumas after Bouma [pronounced "Bowma," not "Booma"], the Dutch psychologist) to believing the theory that has the greatest evidence. I call that rationality.
No. No law was passed in Australia mandating Web accessibility.
Tables are perfectly OK for accessibility if their content makes sense when linearized, as is usually the case in nice rectilinear content blocks. Also, every screen reader in common use save for OutSpoken for Macintosh handles tables (and frames) just fine.
I suppose I ought to point out my own analysis of the SOCOG accessibility decision, Reader's Guide to Sydney Olympics Accessibility Complaint.