LOL. We have been calling those images inserted as design elements
"eye candy." I like "parsley" even better!
scott
From: Judy Stouffer <cherryjam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cherryjam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 13:25:16 -0700
To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Full Inclusion: Image Description
Protocols in 360 Degree Review
I believe the image descriptions Scott is talking about are for NIMAC
sourced textbooks. smile. So they're looking for descriptions for a
totally different purpose, to make sure that information that's
contained in the image and not in the text, is available to the
student, and the description guidelines are related to that.
A lot of the images that are in the textbooks are just there to make a
page of text 'prettier' to a sighted viewer, and aren't even really
related to the text. It's sort of like adding a parsley garnish to a
plate of food. The parsley isn't intended for eating and doesn't add
anything to the flavor, size, texture or smell of the meal. It's
totally optional and just there to draw a sighted person's eye to the
plate and give a visual cue that sighted diners may find pleasant. smile.
Judy s.
Susan Lumpkin wrote:
Hi Lori,
I surely do hope you’re incorrect because, if so, several of us, both
sighted and blind, have spent a great deal of time either describing
or editing descriptions of pictures in detail in such things as
figures in a history book or landscapes in a nonfiction work or
especially pictures in Children's books!
Susan
