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

Re: 3.7 in 1?

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 18:20:04 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
And we do have a semioticist .... or at least an approach in that direction
in Jonathon Chetwyd. Semanticists we seem to have plenty of <grin>


At 05:32 AM 1/3/01 -0800, William Loughborough wrote:
>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?
Anne L. Pemberton
Enabling Support Foundation
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 18:25:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:35 UTC