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

Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 20:27:34 -0500
Message-Id: <Version.32.20010103191544.04e13c50@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 07:57 PM 2001-01-03 +0000, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>> For my money, the work items would be divided functionally.
>
><imuho title="in my utterly humble opinion">
>I reckon that there are more technology driven experts than there are
>functionality driven. We could always generate mixes of each thing on the
>fly. For example, one "page organization" person might only be able to do
>page organization in XHTML. Someone else might prefer to do page
>organization in XML. Then, when we present the documents, the relavent
>parts can be extracted and presented as the reader wishes.
></imuho>
>
>Utterly humble because 9/10+ Al knows what he's talking about with matters
>like these, and 9/10- I don't :-)
>

AG::

<blush/>

There is probably no uniquely 'right' superstructure for this endeavor.  So
long as there are units (examples and technique-patterns) built that do a good
job of bridging between the Human:Computer interface issues that make or break
effective communication on the one side, and the specific-technology
implementation techniques and examples on the other, we will be making good
progress.

The questions we ask about all cases worked up are probably more important
that
the tree we sort them into.  [three choruses of "it's a web, not a tree...]

I am just nervous about the experts being too "technology driven" with the
result that we build a technological tour de force, but spotty coverage of the
access-critical frontiers in the relevant design space.

All of this can be addressed to some degree in the group review.

Posession is nine points of the law.  Those who actually pull an oar do and
should have a lot to say about where we go.

Al

>Kindest Regards,
>Sean B. Palmer
><http://infomesh.net/sbp/>http://infomesh.net/sbp/
>"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
>   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
>  
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 21:32:53 GMT

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