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

RE: Document 'content' includes all element types and attributes (yes/no?)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:02:28 -0500
Message-Id: <200004271557.LAA1132060@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
[I did want to have a semi-detached discussion in PF, but I think this
message may be  clear enough that it helps with today's meeting. This
message was originally sent over the PF list. -Al]


At 09:24 AM 2000-04-27 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Are we in violent agreement here? I have argued in the UA group that
>
>1. Everything needs to be available somehow (for example through a source
>view)
>
>and
>
>2. That for things which are specified as having some kind of rendering a
>source view or suchlike is insufficient, and they should be available to a
>user in a rendered format.
>

Yes.  That statement I can readily agree with.

My chief concern as regards the UAAG is that nothing be said in the
checkpoints which gives readers the impression that the scope of Guideline
2 is somehow narrower than what you state as point 1. in the above
recapitulation.

There are multiple requirements affecting the view repertory:

[P1] You gotta give access to everything.  

[P2] You gotta take all readily achievable measures to make it usable.  

[P2/P3] Where there are multiple readily achievable presentations that have
different usable/unusable characteristics for different groups, you have to
give the user a choice.  [priority level per view-alternative-choice
depends on the worst case usability rating for all groups]

Only the first of these fits under Guideline 2, so far as I can see.  The
way we state the second should not be allowed to create the appearance of
watering down the first.

Al

>Charles
>
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Al Gilman wrote:
>
>  ** summary
>  
>  The appropriate test is not whether the data entity is 'for machines' but
>  whether the machine knows a friendly amendment to try as opposed to raw
>  text encoding.  If the processor knows, from the format spec [IDREF is the
>  ideal example] a better way to show it, it should.  But it should cover all
>  the contents one way or another.
>  
>  ** details
>  
>  At 03:18 AM 2000-04-27 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>  >Yes. There are probably heaps of examples. I was just trying to give a
couple
>  >each way.
>  >
>  >chaals
>  >
>  >On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Pawson, David wrote:
>  >
>  >   Charles McCathieNevile
>  >  > I 
>  >  >believe there is
>  >  >content that is not intended to be read by the user, but 
>  >  >instead by the User
>  >  >Agent.
>  >  
>  >  What about an xml file which contains its xslt stylesheet within
>  >  it? Again surely thats for the ua, not for the end user?
>  
>  This example does not even merit a 'yes.' 
>  
>  With current practices as regards what is in the stylesheet and what is in
>  the pre-style sheet (base XML) it is generally necessary to look at how the
>  author's stylesheet presented the content to infer enough semantic
>  knowledge of what the content is about to design a new stylesheet.  [see
>  PS]  The designer of the adaptive stylesheet is a high-cognitive consumer
>  of this information, but the individual consumer needs access to the data
>  as well, not just experts.
>  
>  But let's put this on a more positive footing.
>  
>  With IDREFs there is an obvious 'better' version of how to present them in
>  a property sheet in the form of a hyperlink, linking to the REFed entity
>  and using the usual sort of text summary techniques as are applied in
>  search results.

>  
>  The appropriate test is not whether the data entity is 'for machines' but
>  whether the machine knows a friendly amendment to try as opposed to raw
>  text encoding.  If the processor knows, from the format spec [IDREF is the
>  ideal example] a better way to show it, it should.  But it should cover all
>  the contents one way or another.
>  
>  Guideline 2 was right as stated.  The collection of checkpoints under it
>  should not cut corners off its scope.
>  
>  Al
>  
>  PS:  The division of information into content and presentation will be
>  ineffective so long as the actual author is only looking at one composite,
>  presented, result and the fatorisation is done by tools at the tool's
>  convenience.  The data of document and stylesheet don't actually segregate
>  content and presentation information well enough to accept this example.
>  Go back to the example with the blind voter and the talking voting machine.
>  
>  >  
>  >  DaveP
>  >  
>  >
>  >--
>  >Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409
134 136
>  >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI
>  >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>  >Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
>  > 
>  
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
> 
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2000 11:57:12 GMT

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