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: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 11:14:22 -0500
Message-Id: <200101041615.LAA773491@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:47 AM 2001-01-04 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>How about using 'illustration' and 'decoration' as the two terms. It makes
>more sense to me that we describe a table as an illustration of a point (or a
>paragraph of text, for that matter) than describing an image as an exhibit.
>(except in courtroom drama <grin/>)


No.  You miss the point.  

We need the unfamiliar concept, for which this is the most familiar term.

You are trying to arrive at a partition composed entirely of colloquial
Among terms in common use, you get a lattice, a taxonomy, and not a
And the concepts that we need extend up and down into abstractions and fine
distinctions beyond what is colloquial, i.e. people don't _ususally_ speak in
terms that broad or that narrow.  

Our vocabulary has to include overlaps, generalizations, and specializations;
and both familiar and unfamiliar concepts.  We need to connect with the rich
redundancy of actual common usage, and relate the uncommon notions we need to
get on with our job well to what is already there in the common notions.

We need the non-colloquial sense of 'exhibit' from the tech editor
community to
complete our thinking about how the layout responds, because the interaction
with algorithms should probably be at this "not so natural to say" level.

It's a compromise with the small brain power of computers.  And it is the
general nature of how we can actually get the idiot computers to do smarter
things.  Only ask them to do things a little smarter.


>On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Al Gilman wrote:
>  At 11:45 PM 2001-01-03 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>  >At 04:56 AM 1/3/2001 , Marti wrote:
>  >>Regarding the use of graphics, I would like to see some changes in the
>  >>terminology used.  Graphics is too generic a term and I doubt that Anne
>  >>really wants two different sizes of all the 'decorative' stuff.  How
>  >>we call the images used to augment text "illustrations" to distinguish
>  >>purpose?
>  >
>  >This is a good idea, as it clearly identifies a _function_
>  >rather than a specific set of _formats_.
>  >
>  AG::
>  Please book the term 'exhibit' into the lingo.  This is borrowed from a
>  term referring to both figures and tables, but as intended it includes
>  equations as well.  Just the other day I discovered that we shouldconsider
>  logos to be in this class.
>  This serves as a superclass for illustrations and other items that enter
>  the formatting logic in a similar way.
>  Al
>  >--Kynn
>  >
>  >--
>  >Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                   
>  <<http://kynn.com/>http://kynn.com/><http://kynn.com/>http://kynn.com/
>  >Sr. Engineering Project Leader, Reef-Edapta      
>  >Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet  
>  >Contributor, Special Edition Using XHTML    
>  >Unofficial Section 508 Checklist          
>  >
>Charles McCathieNevile    <mailto:charles@w3.org>mailto:charles@w3.org   
phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                     
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>until 6 January 2001 at:
>W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 11:09:07 UTC

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