W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Definition: Media equivalents

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:53:29 -0400
Message-ID: <3D176AA9.8010103@w3.org>
To: GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU
CC: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, "'Katie Haritos-Shea'" <ryladog@earthlink.net>, "'3WC WAI X-TECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Sorry
> 
> I lost the track.   Are these definitions or recommendations.     The
> imperative sentence form doesn't look like a definition.
> 
> Smell and vibration are not equivalents of very much I don't think.
> If you mean a vibratory equivalent of a ring....  yep -- but only if
> device will always be in contact with the person when the alert is to
> take place.  
> 
> Smell??     I guess you could smell a call coming in.   need good air
> circulation or a very strong smell 
> 
> But as equivalents for most information......?
> 
> I think you can (and should) make it general in the definition.  
> 
> But I think we need to be careful on the examples of equivalents to not
> confuse verbal and non-verbal modalities.
> 
> 
> Oh - and where we say "text"  shouldn't we say if it is 'data-text' or
> 'visual-text'.. (I'm not suggesting these terms -- but you get what I
> mean

UAAG 1.0 defines "text" as a sequence of characters, and
points to the Character Model for the Web draft.

Other things like pictures of letters (glyphs) are not
considered text in UAAG 1.0.

  _ Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 14:56:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:27 UTC