W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Proposed definitions for content, document object, etc.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:00:35 -0400
Message-ID: <38FDF443.F583452D@w3.org>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> At 12:50 PM 2000-04-19 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >Denis Anson wrote:
> >>
> >> Ian,
> >>
> >> When I use the term "content," I mean the "information" in the page.
> >
> >We don't have a definition of "information" in the document. It's
> >subsumed
> >by "content" as I understand.
> 
> It is important to do a compare and contrast.  The problem is that people
> use 'content' to connote different things.

...and that is where some of the confusion arises...

>  People say "information
> content" when they want to be clear in taking a human-centric view.  That
> is to say "information content" refers to "what the user understands after
> display, sensation, perception, and comprehension are applied."

Why should we talk about this in the guidelines? What requirements
do we have that would be made clearer by the use of this term?
While I agree with the above comments, and I think understanding
this is critical for us to resolve issue 207 and make the document
more solid, it is not clear to me yet that in the end,
this distinction will be useful at the checkpoint level. 
 
> The infoset is a small step in that direction but is still mostly
> data-centric.  It is an accounting of small collections of data and it
> places them in an abstract graph structure instead of a linear syntax with
> <> characters separating structured from unstructured content.
> 
> Effective communication is to be measured in the cognitive plane, what I am
> claiming Denis alludes to.  This is where we observe the breakdown when
> there is breakage, i.e. inaccessible information.
> 
> The user agent algorithms have to work mechanically off the data plane.

Yes.

> Between these two planes lives the HCI problem space for information delivery.
> 
> Al
> 
> >
> >> Specifically, what the author of the page hoped to convey to the reader of
> >> the page.  Some of that information may be in the form of text, some in the
> >> form of picture, and some in the form of layout.
> >>
> >> It will always be impossible for the browser to "know" what the author
> >> intended, but our goal is to make that intended information available to
> the
> 
> >> user with a disability.  It may well be that the author *intended* some of
> >> the text to be invisible, at some stages of viewing of the page.  The AT
> >> must have some way of knowing this, and presenting the information as it is
> >> appropriate.
> >
> >It's much easier to work with a specification than with the author's
> >intention.
> 
> The specification provides the code in which the authoring tool encodes the
> author's intention.  You are talking about the same thing, just viewing it
> in different cross-sections of the process.  Denis before encoding by the
> author tool, Ian after.
> 
> The basic meta-protocol that we worked into the !important reform was this:
> always respect the author indications as defaults; always give the user the
> last word.  This includes changing show/hide indications.
> 
> The author is not assumed to understand the full range of alternate
> presentations that their ideas will be viewed through.  The user deserves a
> shot at re-flowing the ideas, selecting among _all actual data sent_ to
> make the alternate view more usable.
> 
> Al
> 
> >
> >> Doing a "page dump" (the electronic equivalent of a brain dump) seldom
> >> conveys the intention of the author.  You can't just pile all of the
> >> available information on the user, and expect them to sort it out.  That's
> >> why we have parsing!
> >>
> >> Denis
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ian@w3.org [mailto:ian@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ian Jacobs
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:49 AM
> >> To: Denis Anson
> >> Cc: Hans Riesebos; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for content, document object, etc.
> >>
> >> Denis Anson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Further,  I think that the intent of 2.1 is that the user agent make
> >> > available to the user, either natively or through AT, the content of the
> >> > page.
> >>
> >> The intent of 2.1 is being debated. I believe that it currently reads
> >> as you say, but that we are going to remove the "or through an API"
> >> part.
> >>
> >> What do you mean be "content of the page"? Please refer to the
> >> definition
> >> of content proposed [1] and see if that meets your expectations.
> >>
> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0132.html
> >>
> >> > A user agent is basically a parsing and rendering agent, and in the case
> >> of
> >> > AT, it is primarily a parsing agent, since the AT will do most of the
> >> > rendering.  If source view were to meet the demands of 2.1, a user agent
> >> > would be freed of the need even to parse the code into understandable
> >> > chunks.  The agent would just do its thing with no attention to access,
> >> and
> >> > pass the raw code on to the AT, which would then be expected to perform
> >> the
> >> > entire task that the host agent is supposed to do.
> >> >
> >> > Denis
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
> >> > Behalf Of Hans Riesebos
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 6:17 AM
> >> > To: ij@w3.org
> >> > Cc: <
> >> > Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for content, document object, etc.
> >> >
> >> > Some small remarks <Hans>between these tags</Hans>
> >> >
> >> > >>> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> 04/18/00 10:54PM >>>
> >> >
> >> > 6) Source view
> >> >
> 
> >> >    <BLOCKQUOTE>
> >> >    A source view renders all or part of the document
> >> >    object in a way that reveals the document object
> >> >    model. Often, a source view presents the document
> >> >    object using the syntax of the source markup
> >> >    languages.
> >> >    </BLOCKQUOTE>
> >> >
> >> > <Hans>
> >> > As I understand, the "source" is unparsed and therefore cannot reveal the
> >> > document object in any way. Speaking of document object itself is false.
> >> If
> >> > only the source was already parsed (contradiction in terms), a source
> view
> >> > might (minimally) satisfy checkpoint 2.1, because in effect it would have
> >> > become a document object view.
> >> > </Hans>
> >> >
> >> > Hans Riesebos
> >> > ALVA BV, The Netherlands
> >> > HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> >> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> >> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
> >
> >--
> >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> >Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> >Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
> >

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 14:00:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:03 GMT