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

Re: generalization/abstraction

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:59:33 -0700
Message-ID: <396CC015.28F3CA2@gorge.net>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
A coupla weeks ago I sent some proposals concerning the GL
generalization project to the list and got 0 (zero) replies. I wonder if
anybody read it and decided it just wasn't worth responding to or what?

I also wonder if "content", "structure", "presentation" need to have
added a separate category for "navigation" since that function isn't
*really* covered in the others. Many of the uses of tables (and I guess
frames as well) are visual conceits for the purpose of maintaining a
constant navigation function. 

Here are excerpts from the previous post - you can see the whole thing
in the archives at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000AprJun/0488.html

> 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.

-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2000 15:00:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:05 GMT