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

Re: Minority opinons (equivalency has no 'target,' only 'partners')

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:25:11 -0400
Message-Id: <200010130106.VAA1255671@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
This is going to sound contradictory, but I need to tell you this so there is
no confusion later.  

I am prepared to argue in WCA that they should be prepared to back off on the
separation of text and formatting, and be more tolerant of HTML inline
formatting properties where the intent behind the formatting is captured and
disclosed, e.g. in the markup or metadata.  This hinges on the definition of
suitable conventions in the formats, but I would be in favor of being more
flexible on this point is such can be arranged.

But the behavior available to the user through the good offices of the user
agent should be to remove, on user option required, any hint of bias among the
members of an equivalence group. The requirement to make all equivalents
(fellow members of an equivalence group) available is to be extended with full
force regarding all of them equally, without a shred of distinction.

This is the same kind of symmetry well understood in the randomization of
candidate order in the printing of ballots.  Since the order of appearance has
the effect of biasing the voter, the order of appearance is scrambled across
different voters' ballots to minimize any unfairness created across the
breadth
of the voting populace.

We need to have a logical model of equivalence relationships which is that
simon pure, as the foundation on which the "access to all options, when there
are equivalents," language of the UAAG is built.

Al
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2000 21:01:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT