- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 18:20:04 -0800
- 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> Anne 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? > >-- >Love. > ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE > > Anne L. Pemberton http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling apembert@crosslink.net Enabling Support Foundation http://www.enabling.org
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 18:25:15 UTC