W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

generalization/abstraction

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:12:32 -0700
Message-ID: <395BBBC0.88EB6B5A@gorge.net>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
GL 1: How about "Provide [rich?] Alternative Content.

GL 2: I'm not sure why color is singled out as a presentation problem.
Somehow any use of any formatting technique should not be used in the
sense of "only" insofar as semantics is concerned.

GL 3: Is "style sheets" fully generalized? XSL, e.g.?

GL 5: "tables" is too specific since we are actually concerned with
*any* devices used to provide eye candy - tables are not much different
than, say pie charts in this regard. The generalization should be
general! Any use of position (or font, or color, or etc.) must consider
accessibility.

GL 6: See 2 and 5 for generalization it's not *just* "new technologies"
that must transform gracefully.

The rest of them, I just haven't considered much. But I think we have to
think really general/abstract for the guidelines themselves. Mention of
singled-out instances belong in either checkpoints or techniques. We are
dealing with a "semantic Web" and the use of any modality must
acknowledge its functional intent.

-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2000 17:13:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:04 GMT