RE: WCAG2.0 Draft (A Question)

In that case I feel it should read;

"Presentation is the rendering of the content and structure in a form that
can be
perceived by the user."

We are dealing with Guideline 1: Perceivable.  This would be consistent with
the guideline.  Also 1.4 states, "All characters and words in the content
can be unambiguously decoded.  I feel "perceivable" strengthens this as it
is the word that is used to define this guideline, and is also directly
appropriate in this context.

"Sensed" can refer to an intuition about the presence of something, but
still with some uncertainty (I sensed something was there, but I was
unsure).  It could mean that you sensed that content or navigation is there,
but there is no positive way to interact with the medium to confirm this,
yet at the same time you can't deny it.  It leaves a question mark about the
whole experience, it is a word, when used in this context, conveys
uncertainty.  Perceived means you did actually have some confirming
experience of a perception that the object was there, through whichever
sensory organ you wish to establish communication with that medium.

Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 September 2003 11:16 PM

Jeff, good question about "sensed" versus "easily comprehended."

All the checkpoints under guideline 1 are (or should be) aimed at making
it possible for users to actually *perceive* content-- that is, to be
aware that it exists.  It's a much lower level of abstraction than
understanding (which the checkpoints in Guideline 3 address).  The issue
of whether I understand a given resource is moot if I don't even know
it's there.

So the notion that content can be "sensed" isn't as fuzzy as it might
sound: in fact, sensing/perceiving is much more readily testable than
"understanding," which is as fuzzy and vast as the sky.  And as
important, of course.

Hope this helps!
John

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 20:25:02 UTC