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

Re: terms for pictures and such (both coarse and fine categories, related)

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:12:58 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

	Am I assuming correctly that we are asking authors to consider their
"content" to consist of 1) text, and 2) exhibits (exhibits can include
illustrations, tables, multi-media, forms, etc.) ... a page would then
consist of "navigation", "presentation" and "content", with "presentation"
being decorations, text,and coding that enables technologies/assistive
technologies and "Navigation" being interaction with other pages including
moving to the "next" page, etc? 

	If I assume correctly, we are moving towards the new organization for the
guidelines that Wendy proposed ... 	

	Am I understanding?



At 09:56 PM 1/4/01 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>This is a bit heavy going, but I haven't found time to make it simple.  I
>this helps a little to make what I meant clear.
>At 12:49 PM 2001-01-04 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Al Gilman wrote:
>>  At 09:47 AM 2001-01-04 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>  >How about using 'illustration' and 'decoration' as the two terms. It
>>  >more sense to me that we describe a table as an illustration of a point
>>  >paragraph of text, for that matter) than describing an image as an
>>  >
>>  >(except in courtroom drama <grin/>)
>>  >
>>  AG::
>>  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
>>  terms.
>>I'm not sure what you mean by a partition. I am trying to arrive at a series
>>of documents that people can use and understand without looking up the
>>definitions section any more than they really have to.
>>It is worth being explicit in the definitions sense that we are using a rich
>>(but common) meaning for a term, and not a narrow one, if that is the case.
>>Besides, we use the verb "illustrate" to mean 'expand upon using graphics,
>>sound, whatever it takes' in a checkpoint, with text that makes it clear.
>>In other words, I'm trying to keep the language clear and simple, and think
>>illustrate / illustration does it better than exhibit. It still allows us to
>>be readily understood with the meaning we have, and we can reinforce that
>>with an explanantion of what we mean in the glossary.
>'illustrations' belongs in our working vocabulary.  'exhibits' belongs in our
>working vocabulary.  Quote "_the_ two terms" unquote does not belong in
>what we
>think we have _decided_.  It is too soon to know how many terms will be
>required in the end to say what we need to say.
>1.  I have no problem with calling illustrations 'illustrations.'  That
>what I said at all.  I do have a problem thinking we an get authors to call
>tables 'illustrations.'  But not to get their editors to call tables
>'exhibits.'  That's how they talk already.
>2.  As it turns out, we can't write the total corpus of documents we need
>(clearly) without using overloaded terms, that is to say using _both broad
>narrow terms_ in talking about _the same thing_ _in different contexts_.
>You invoked the image of a partition, and gave the idea that 2. above was not
>true, when you used the definite article 'the' in "the two terms."  In
>particular, this was not responsive [did not correspond] to my request to
>insert (i.e. add) a more abstract notion into our working ideology.  I didn't
>say "call _the_ category 'exhibits'."  I said "Please, let's _think_ in terms
>of _a_ more abstract 'exhibits' category _as well_."
>I think it is fine to assert "illustrations and decorations are two kinds of
>graphics that should be treated differently by the author."  I absolutely
>object to saying "illustrations and decorations are _the_ two kinds of
>that should be treated differently by the author."  We need to explore what
>categories there are and what ways there are to handle them some more
>before we
>know how many categories are going to show up in the final explanation.
>I claim [broken record] that we need both to let the author call their object
>something that they can understand, like an illustration, and also have our
>infrastructure (a.k.a. data model, dialect description document or profile)
>provide the clear connection that illustrations so marked are members of some
>broader class [like exhibits] for which we have asked the User Agent to
>some minimum set of method handlers.  The "graceful transformation" methods
>likely to need these more abstract classes like 'exhibit' to cover the
>waterfront of applications gracefully (and affordably).  This way our access
>strategies don't break just because we introduce a new class of exhibits.  It
>helps provide room for creativity and coping at the same time.
>We need headroom for finding patterns within the problems we have with
>different kinds of items.  I just asked to insert one of these
>into the glossary along with the more immediately recognizable terms.  The
>general page structure case includes sidebars as much as figures and tables. 
>The sidebar is a story within itself, but has no one logical serial place in
>the longer story in the background.  A sidebar is the same kind of stuff as
>background story, but not an ordered part of a common narrative thread.  [the
>electronic book model forces us to pick some global linear order, but this is
>not actually the semantics of the content.]  Equations and diagrams, on the
>other hand, reflect changes in the pallette of what kind of stuff can go in
>there.  We need a document and site composition model that deals with both of
>these kinds of distinctions.
>A case currently at point has to do with WCAG-required patterns of
>among content fragments, and how the User Agent should provide connected,
>related, or in-context access to these fragments [see Checkpoint 2.3 in the
>latest draft.]  The point is that while the WCAG requires the _author_ to
>these alternatives _equivalent_ in their (after human processing)
>effect, it doesn't require the formats to provide _dedicated_ content control
>mechanisms for disability access or for 'equivalents' required under the
>It only requires the author to employ the content control mechanisms that the
>format defines, so the user will have the opportunity to tune the
>to meet their needs.  The User Agent completes the strategy by ensuring that
>"content control" means "user control."
>The User Agent should give all users full control (and efficient, in the
>of making the relatedness of the options obvious) over the ultimate
outcome of
>the content-control features defined in the formats.  The access methods
>be keyed to "content control structures," not "WCAG equivalents structures." 
>It is the former, and not the latter, that the formats define.  Content
>is actually a _protocol_ supported by option structures in the formats.  The
>user agent requirement is to make sure the user can control the end result by
>some mechanism.  It can be interactive or by configuration only or whatever. 
>See the UAAG for details.  But the point is that the user agent methods
>to the more general class of "content control" structures, not
specifically to
>just the equivalents that the author put there for disability access reasons.
>PS:  The term 'non-linear' is too narrow.  We need to get beyond 'single
>threaded' vs. 'other.'  Most of the rhetoric of page design is
>not "non-linear."  There is more than one thread weaving through the bag of
>contents.  Almonst nothing is in there that doesn't participate in one plot
>thread or another.  Some of the pieces participate in more than one.
>>chaals (although I may have still missed your point, in which case please
>>explain again)
>>  Among terms in common use, you get a lattice, a taxonomy, and not a
>>  partition.
>>  And the concepts that we need extend up and down into abstractions and
>>  distinctions beyond what is colloquial, i.e. people don't _ususally_ speak
>>  terms that broad or that narrow.
>>  Our vocabulary has to include overlaps, generalizations, and
>>  and both familiar and unfamiliar concepts.  We need to connect with the
>>  redundancy of actual common usage, and relate the uncommon notions we need
>>  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
>>  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
>>  things.  Only ask them to do things a little smarter.
>>  Al
>>  >chaals
>>  >
>>  >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
>>  >  >>terminology used.  Graphics is too generic a term and I doubt that
>>  >  >>really wants two different sizes of all the 'decorative' stuff.  How
>>  about
>>  >  >>we call the images used to augment text "illustrations" to
>>  their
>>  >  >>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
>>  common
>>  >  term referring to both figures and tables, but as intended it includes
>>  set-off
>>  >  equations as well.  Just the other day I discovered that we
>>  >  logos to be in this class.
>>  >
>>  >  This serves as a superclass for illustrations and other items that
>>  into
>>  >  the formatting logic in a similar way.
>>  >
>>  >  Al
>>  >
>>  >  >--Kynn
>>  >  >
>>  >  >--
>>  >  >Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                   
>>  > 
>>  >  >Sr. Engineering Project Leader, Reef-Edapta      
>>  > 
>>  .reef.com/
>>  >  >Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet  
>>  > 
>>  m/><http://www.idyllmtn.com/>http://www.idyllmtn.com/
>>  >  >Contributor, Special Edition Using XHTML    
>>  > 
>>  html><http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml>http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml
>>  >  >Unofficial Section 508 Checklist          
>>  > 
>>  section508><http://kynn.com/+section508>http://kynn.com/+section508
>>  >  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >--
>>  >Charles McCathieNevile   
>>  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,
>>  France
>>  >
>>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,
Anne L. Pemberton
Enabling Support Foundation
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2001 14:52:12 GMT

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