W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: 3.7 in 1?

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:25:46 -0500
Message-Id: <Version.32.20010102224300.0438eb20@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 09:12 AM 2001-01-02 -0800, William Loughborough wrote:
>Is there any sentiment for including the matters in 3.7 "Supplement text 

I would admit to some sentiment in that direction.
In fact, the use of 'supplement' here, where 'complement' is by contrast
clearly the big-tent term, raises a red flag after all we have been through.

We need a semioticist to give us the language in which to say this.  It is not
just diversity in sensory channel, there is also diversity among different
kinds of communicative gesture: designation vs. evocation, and either words or
pictures can fall in either of those categories.  I'll see what I can find.

Somehow we have to communicate both a first-among-equals status for text
without going to Lombardiesque excess.  Yes, today, text is the most important
thing; but definitely not the only thing.  Because yes, there are people for
whom it is the _last_ thing they need.

Al

>with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate 
>comprehension of the content" into guideline 1 "Design content that can be 
>presented visually, auditorily or tactually, according to the needs and 
>preferences of the user."
>
>One possible aim is to differentiate the notion of "content" from the 
>purely "text" connotation we've been focused on?
>
>Love.
>  
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 23:20:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT