W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: SVG WG announces Last Call of SVG 1.2

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:38:13 +0000
Message-Id: <7561E6C4-323B-11D9-AEF9-000A95C7D298@btinternet.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
To: "Doug Schepers" <doug@schepers.cc>

Doug,

I don't think that I do agree. The intention is primary. It may be that 
the authoring tool has to be 'pretty advanced', but it is as well to 
keep that in mind.
Otherwise one may design specs that users can't engage with. It is 
vital that technologies are bound by the needs of users, rather than 
their potential abilities.

There are web applications or tools that allow disabled users to create 
style sheets that suit their needs.
users are after all, in the best position to judge what their 
requirements are.
I am sure you are aware of the styling tools available on peepo.co.uk, 
which are designed for pre-literate users. (missing the cookie that 
would mean the result was less transient.)
IMO the user is creating the style sheet, I am not in a position to, 
not having any concept of who they are.
In a similar and not so different process the user could transform 
presentation to their satisfaction and in that process create a unique 
sXBL file.

It would of course be a better product if that same sXBL file could be 
used across a broad range of resources from different publishers.
(CSS style sheets provide some of this benefit for html)
However this will require extreme care and good will from developers as 
the range of resources and interactivity is so much the greater.

We fail the whole disabled community if we do not continuously ensure 
that our efforts take their needs into consideration.
good intentions are not enough.

regards

Jonathan Chetwynd
http://www.peepo.co.uk     "It's easy to use"
irc://freenode/accessibility
On 9 Nov 2004, at 10:18, Doug Schepers wrote:


Hi, Jonathan-

I don't think it's realistic for average users (much less people with
various accessibility issues) to create sXBL without a pretty advanced
authoring tool. I think that developers will have to create the 
components,
which could be utilized by users. Do you agree with this?

Rather, may I suggest that there be included in the Spec explicit 
language
and mechanisms intended to facilitate this reuse? Something like:
"An authors of a document may indicate which sXBL components are the
defaults to be used with that document; these defaults may be 
overridden by
applicable user-indicated sXBL components that address that user's 
needs.
User-defined sXBL components may only be used for documents or document
fragments with the appropriate namespace."

It would be nice if a UA could discover compatible components; failing 
that,
UAs should be able to access and apply components both locally to the 
user's
computer and from libraries of components available on the Web.

Regards-
Doug

Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
|
|
| Chris,
|
| re: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG12/binding.html#sXBL-introduction
|
| could the second sentence be changed to read "sXBL allows
| developers and users to create re-usable...."
|
| sXBL offers potential accessibility enhancements similar and
| hopefully improved on CSS*, it would be empowering if users
| were included in this concept.
|
| regards
|
| Jonathan Chetwynd
| http://www.peepo.co.uk     "It's easy to use"
| irc://freenode/accessibility
|
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004Nov/0229.html
| *Doug Schepers wrote:
|
| You brought up an interesting point on svg-dev. Should SVG1.2
| allow users to provide their own sXBL components, much as
| alternate CSS stylesheets can be used for HTML pages? It's up
| to the UA implementors to do this, but I thin it's worth
| mentioning in the Spec. A user could provide their own sXBL
| templates for known XML ontologies and models (like XForms or
| MathML or whatever), which would help them render it in a
| manner more suitable for their own needs. The authoring
| community could work to provide alternate accessible sXBL;
| perhaps the Spec could talk abou how even the primary author
| can provide several different components, each applicable to
| a different need. This is a good feature from CSS that
| shouldn't be discarded.
|
|
|
|
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 10:38:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC