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.comReceived 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