As a fan of Times New Roman font, I was saddened to learn that it really isn't as accessible as I would like it to be for websites. I will admit that my first glance at the inaccessible version of the site didn't strike me as having as many issues until I then compared it with the accessible version. I'm still having the most trouble understanding the issue with the CITYLIGHTS title and don't really notice the change that is noted in the annotation on the page. However, perhaps after a few more glances I will note the difference.
Since only one other person has posted his observations so far, he and I did share some similar views about our surprise about accessible fonts and the issue with the links for the "News" and "Terms and Conditions" on the ticket page. Many websites have daunting terms and conditions in the similar bold font in screaming caps-lock, so seeing it here didn't surprise me. I had always assumed it was to get my attention and make sure the "Caveat Emptor" or "Buyer Beware" of the purchase. He and I also noted how the changes from inaccessible to accessible seemed like easy fixes that I'm sure if we all had practice seeing and doing them, it would become more common-place.
While creating assignments for classes, my Times New Roman always seemed visually appealing because there was some an order and style that accompanied it. Even the comedian Aziz Ansari compares how most us should be acting like Times New Roman font, but alas, many are similar to Wingdings instead. That is something I would always use in my classroom as a way to note to students how important the font was not only as a comparison to life, but also to follow the rules set forth by the Modern Language Association for papers. I will have to take a good look at these assignments this summer to see how I could revise the documents to seem more visually appealing and accessible for the readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment