W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Braille style sheets

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:05:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5076DE11C@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>
Cc: "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> I think the idea is that embossed braille is on a page, and has different  
> layout requirements to a dynamic braille display, just as print and screen  
> presentation is often different.

Yes, I agree, the term “emboss” very much implies paper.  But then that table is wrong as it shows “interactive” for emboss where print correctly gets the value of “static”.

>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html#media-groups


There is also the media type value of “braille” which has the correct values for a refreshable Braille display.  It has the same values as “tty” except “tactile” instead of “visual”.

> The idea is that you could replace one of the functions
> of [Braille translation] with CSS styles. 

This is an intriguing idea, since it is easy to find compelling examples the print media type in live use.  Moreover, there are embossers that can perform half-decent (definitely not textbook quality, but generally useable) on-the-fly grade two translation.  (CSS, of course, can't handle this aspect of Braille.)

How might, in actual use and application, support for the emboss media type differ from the print media type?  Can you suggest some practical examples?  CSS could certainly substitute fixed point fonts everywhere, but I can't think of any utility beyond that.  Can CSS cause images to display ALT content while otherwise hiding a graphic?  How about rendering a character (like a leading asterisk or underscore) as a substitute for EM or STRONG?

Thanks.
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 14:05:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:21 GMT