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

Re: author-defined content vs. "primary" content

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:58:13 -0400
Message-Id: <Version.32.20000920163233.042b76c0@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Cc: Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
There is a pragmatic reality in terms of "the content which is exposed in
the view which, as the document left the server, is the default or most
likely view to be exposed.  This how the author expected the content to be
viewed is all too frequently limited to this view."  

On the other hand, the term 'primary' clearly comes down to far in the
direction of favoring overly narrow expectations.   We are trying very hard
over in EO to get authors to think in terms of a range of views which
achieve equivalent effects.

We probably still need a compact epithet for this category.  My nominee
would be 'initial.'  To the extent that there are alternate equivalents
available in the document bundle, they are "author's" content just as much
as the 'initial' content.  This may be based on my overexposure to
programming languages, but to me this bears the right connotations that
this is what you get if you do nothing, but there is no special reason why
that is the value it has to have.   As in specifying an initial value for a
type [see XML Schema].  

The group may prefer 'default,' but I tend to expect that 'initial' would
actually be more often interpreted right than 'default' when one comes to
readers outside the programming community.

Al

At 10:56 AM 2000-09-20 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 09:13 PM 9/18/2000 , Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>>i strenuously object to any such classification of content along the
lines of "primary" and "secondary" -- like it or not, it implies an
objective (albeit fallacious) hierarchy of importance, based upon a purely
phenomenological interpretation of content...
>
>I have to agree with Gregory; it is simply incorrect to label one
>modality of content as primary and the other as secondary based
>purely on the medium of that content.  Such language can easily
>give incorrect impressions.
>
>--Kynn, even though you didn't explicitly ask _my_ opinion :)
>
>-- 
>Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
>Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
>Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
>AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
>Accessibility Roundtable Web Broadcast           http://kynn.com/+on24
>What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/
> 
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2000 22:39:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT