Re: what's the point (was Graphics! Graphics! Graphics!)

Subject: Re: what's the point (was Graphics! Graphics! Graphics!)
From: "Michael West" <mbwest -at- bigpond -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:28:34 +1100

Curtis Ward wrote:



> Although I agree that is sometimes the case, I wouldn't use that as a
> blanket statement. Bought any Bose stereo equipment lately? The
> installation/assembly instructions for their speaker systems include ONLY
> the text that physically appears on the parts -- no explanatory text at all.



Yes, non-textual situations are a clear exception. There, pictures
take the place of text.

That isn't what I had in mind, but it shows up the need to address
the "audience needs" issue before we make broad
generalizations about what works and what doesn't.

I'll stand by my basic point, though -- in an essentially textual
document, pictures must be explicitly tied to text. Otherwise, their
significance can too easily be missed.

Michael West
Melbourne

I imagine that someday there will be a new kind
of sadomasochistic role-playing in which the
technologically adept will pay dominatrices to
treat them like newbies.
-- Dennis Cass (Harper's Magazine, July 2000)









Previous by Author: RE: a vocabulary question
Next by Author: Re: informational interview questions
Next by Thread: RE: what's the point (was Graphics! Graphics! Graphics!)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads