W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [css3-lists] [css3-speech] Interaction between list-style-type and speak properties

From: Belov, Charles <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:24:36 -0700
Message-ID: <E17F75B6E86AE842A57B4534F82D0376CD2858@MTAMAIL.muni.sfgov.org>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
fantasai wrote on  Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:55 AM
> On 04/27/2011 11:43 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:24 AM, fantasai 
> > <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  wrote:
> >> On 04/27/2011 11:12 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >>> It doesn't seem like the distinction between numeric and 
> alphabetic 
> >>> is important.  They're just alternate ways of 
> representing numbers.
> >>> We've already made the point that legal documents, where 
> the precise 
> >>> marker is important, should use inline text for their 
> markers (which 
> >>> reminds me that I need to add the 
> >>> display:marker/list-style-type:inline feature).  In other 
> documents, 
> >>> the fact that a list is presented as "A" instead of "1" is mostly 
> >>> irrelevant.  This is styling information, not semantic content.
> >>
> >> Yes, it's styling rather than semantic. I'm not arguing semantics.
> >> I'm arguing that if the document is styled with letters, then an 
> >> aural presentation of it in all likelihood wants to read those 
> >> letters rather than treating it as bullets (<ul>) or 
> numbers (<ol>) 
> >> depending on the markup. Daniel's point is that this capability is 
> >> not addressed in either CSS3 Speech or CSS3 Lists.
> >
> > And my point is that even if you make the distinction 
> between bullets, 
> > numbers, and alphanumerics, there are still list styles 
> that can't be 
> > slotted into those categories.  Even within a 
> seemingly-simple style 
> > like 'alphabetic', you can get styles that *cannot* be read - for 
> > example, the "go stones" example I have in the spec.
> 
> Which means there's a problem that needs to be solved, not 
> that there is no problem.
 
Alas, we are seeing a side effect of comment-trimming when replying.
This whole thread started with my post on Monday 2/7/2011 at 12:56 p.m.,
which stated a real-world case as to why it was a problem for screen
readers not to read the <ol> bullets as written:

"in the case of a public meeting, where we have a legally published
agenda, and items are called by the chair by letter, it would be
important to me that the rendered speech be:

A. First item
B. Second item
C. Third item

and I would definitely *not* want to leave this decision to the user
agent."

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0195.html

Hope this helps,
Charles Belov
SFMTA Webmaster
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 19:26:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT