- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:33:03 +0100
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Robert J Burns 2009-03-01 21.26:
> On Mar 1, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>
>> Robert J Burns 2009-03-01 20.43:
>>> On Mar 1, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>>> As for your proposal directly. I don't have any strong objections
>>>>> to this approach. I also think your proposal would work equally
>>>>> well with either version A or version B.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I guess so. I saw text bit in version b which spoke about other
>>>> users than speech and braille users, and I was not certain I agreed
>>>> to that.
>>> Could you be more specific
[...]
> I understood Joshue's comment to be about general users or users who did
> not need any extra information to consume the table.
>
> However, could you discuss specifically which users targeted by version
> B that are not targeted by version A that led you to not support version
> B. I'm not trying to confront you on this, I simply want to make not of
> the specific objection on the wiki page. Two differences I see between
> version A and version B targeted users are those with cognitive
> disabilities and users of non-visual UAs (who may not necessarily have
> visual disabilities). So though I had originally assumed you meant those
> with cognitive disabilities, I have to admit I'm not sure which group of
> users led you to not support version B.
I meant those with cognitive disabilities. I am not certain that
they can be targetted the same way as those who are unable to see
the content. (E.g. may be they need fewer words, and not more words.)
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 20:33:45 UTC