Park (2006) discusses writing through print texts, while the accessibility factsheet primarily focuses on writing for digital texts. Both of the articles attempt to convey a way of writing that stands out to the reader, and delivers the point in an efficient and effective manner. While both of the authors are writing for audiences on different platforms, there are still a wide rang of commonalities between the two.
Parker makes a point in his article, that, “most good design tips are not document specific”. When it comes to “good” design principles, both of the articles discuss the importance of a design matching the tone of the work being produced. This is crucial for both digital and print text, because if the image doesn’t match, it is not going to aid the reader in uncovering the message. Images serve as reiterations, or visuals per say, of what the written letters say on the pages. This is the same idea as the accessibility article’s suggestion to provide, “appropriate alternative text”. Whether the reader is looking at the picture or reading the writing, the two should coincide. Furthermore, the Park article discusses proper headings, as does the accessibility article. This is important because the heading is the first thing the reader will be drawn to, whether the work is digital or print. It is important to use headings that draw the right message to the reader because this may very well dictate whether they decide to keep reading.
There are also several commonalities between accessible texts and “good” design, regardless if the media is print or digital. Accessibility is a matter of reaching the proper audience in a way that they can easily interpret the message of the work. “Good” design covers the same idea; if the design is properly constructed then it will reenforce the message of the piece and reach the reader. While in accessible texts, this may mean providing hyper links, in a print work, this means verbally giving credit to sources. Accessibility and “good” design fall under the same category because they both work towards delivering information in a way that the reader finds effective. The two cannot be accomplished without the use of one another. The accessibility article discusses the difficulty of linking text to images that serve as the main argument in a work. This can be accomplished properly through the use of “good” design.
Furthermore, the use of color can be a tricky- yet resourceful tool when creating “good” design that is accessible through digit or print media. The main objective of using color is to make the work pop. However, this is a double sided spear because while it can make the work stand out by attracting the reader’s attention and adding to their experience, it can also be distracting and take away from the general point. The article about color discusses the idea of color harmony in particular. Color harmony is described as, “a pleasing arrangement of parts, whether it be music, poetry, color, or even an ice cream sundae”. Essentially, the point is to add balance and engagement to the reader’s experience. Everything that is added to a work, serves to enhance the argument and solidify what is being said- either through words or images. So by using colors that follow the same tone of the passage or image, the reader’s experience can significantly be changed. Obviously, if there is too much color, or bland color, or color that does not match the overall tone of the work, it will only hurt the reader’s experience and prevent the message from being properly configured.
One manages being accessible and incorporating good design by following the basic principles in all three of the articles. Good “design” and accessibility go hand in hand because they both work to formulate a work that is efficient and effective in getting the right point across while sustaining the reader’s attention throughout. Color is added to this process because it adds an element that images and text can not do all in their own. Color helps the reader’s engagement, and contributes to tying the message together. If a design is structured properly and in an effective format, then it will be more accessible to the reader. If color is used properly, the benefit of the work will only increase.
I’ve been thinking about how I use images more, especially (as I’ll show on Tuesday) when thinking about “image descriptions.” These are moves made by digital writers for people who are sight-impaired. Seems unfair to not try to provide an alternative experience for what the image is for people who use screen readers (programs that read aloud what is written down) to read, right? So, the idea is to add text that is much more detailed than a caption so the meaning made by the image (including the stuff on color, as you write about toward the end) is not lost.
With that in mind, I want to ask you a question about the below:
“Images serve as reiterations, or visuals per say, of what the written letters say on the pages. This is the same idea as the accessibility article’s suggestion to provide, “appropriate alternative text”. Whether the reader is looking at the picture or reading the writing, the two should coincide.”
What if the image “coincides” but also says something different? Or provides something different tonally, as is the case with color, as you wrote about? Do images say something different than the text that they engage with? Do they *always* say something different, or is that only true sometimes? And if it is only sometimes, does that mean image descriptions should not be used universally? Even if they add nothing (if they are “reiterations”), should we still provide those descriptions? What do you think? Tricky stuff.
PS, make sure you have a title that captures your blog post 😉 I’m sure you can do better than Week 7 Blog Post, I’ve read a lot of your writing by now to know that to be true!