W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: No Math and Science Guidelines

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:17:40 -0500 (EST)
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9901061807050.13-100000@tux.w3.org>
Hmmm. On the one hand, the goal you are proposing is really beyond the
scope of the Guidelines, and in that sense I think we should be extremely
wary of putting stuff like that into them. On the other hand, you are
right that it could be used to promote awareness, which is not a bad
thing.

It is probably sensible to use MathML as an example for the current a.14
'use W3C technologies where possible...', or for a checkpoint which
suggests keeping track of emerging W3C technologies such as MathML.

From what I understand it would be appropriate to use it as an example of
a technology which was accessible for new implementations, but which did
not provide useful content to older implementations, and therefore needs
to be supplemented with redundant information. (I think I wrote a note to
the list a few months ago about doing this, via OBJECT)

But in the guidelines I have trouble with the idea that we should single
out scientific information (and not music, for example) as needing special
attention. Although we already do that for audio/visual media. Should we
generalise the examples a bit more?

thoughts?

Charles

On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote:

  To have a checkpoint related to math and scientific representations I think
  would be useful to give visibility to the issue.  This is especially
  important in educational environments like the one I work in.  If
  information on math and scientific representations is burried in a more
  generic checkpoint description, it may not be easy for people to find.
  Jon
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 1999 18:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT