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

Re: 3.7 in 1?

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 05:32:15 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010103051512.0298b080@mail.gorge.net>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 11:25 PM 1/2/01 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>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 "

One semanticist coming right up.

Once we've agreed that there is information/content/sub-verbal stuff then 
ideophone/ideogram/ideohapt/ideo-pheromone/+(?) divisions are all 
presentational. But we had to agree in the first place. That we're all in 
this together and have mutual membership makes it at least possible, even 
when it seems unlikely.

The guidelines <h>will</h> be in words because we've agreed that these 
(however presented) are the chosen "first among equals". As we hippify to 
pictures/touches/tastes we may get better but this round will be 
screen/print/spoken "text". Complementation is "desirable" but neither 
sufficient nor necessary - although our ruminative discourse about the 
latter will continue.

The underlying problem is that illustrative definition is murkier than is 
verbal. At root all are illustrative/depictive/conveyant/communicative/+ 
dealings with the unspoken/(?)unspeakable "reality level".

I hope that's saner than it sounds?

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 08:31:39 GMT

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