W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: A few surprising facts from an accessibility presentation

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 19:25:47 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <52100.144.139.35.82.1085876747.squirrel@www.sidar.org>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Cc: "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I'm not sure why you find any of these results surprising.

I would be content if content analysis were easy enough for a computer to
get pronunciation right. But in the general case it isn't - you can either
wait for the pipe-dream of automatic natural language processing, or use
language in such a way that you avoid the problems which can arise.

As a mechanism for bridging the gap, one could annotate content (content
about the idea?) to clarify ambiguities. These can be pronunciation,
meaning, or even tortured syntax that is hard to understand (I am sure you
can find examples in WCAG and in the real world :-).

"There are two ways to pronounce 'entrance'". (actually there are more,
but most people who know the two meanings will distinguish them clearly.
Screen readers don't have so much hope...)

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile           charles@sidar.org
                 http://www.sidar.org

<quote who="Joe Clark">
>
> <http://mailman.u.washington.edu/pipermail/accessibleweb/2004/000105.html>
>
> Looks like Jaws (et al.) need to really clean up their pronunciation
> dictionaries.
Received on Saturday, 29 May 2004 20:26:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:32 UTC