Re: Gilman-1& Gilman-2

[for the record: accept disposition of these two comments.]

Off the record:

We were talking past one another, here. What you called Gilman-1 and
Gilman-2 is some opening statements on philosophy, not feature
requirements. This material wound up getting read too closely.
Elsewhere you clearly support the principles I was trying to assert
but did not get across.

The real action item here is to develop a corpus of practice and
haggle over what is recommendable practice in that context.

We still have work to do in that regard; it's real work, not trivial, but
the bare technical bones should move forward nevertheless.

My current take on the Primer is that it's headed to Note.

I don't see any normative dependencies on the Primer from the two
Specs presently in Last Call.  That should tell us something.

Al

At 11:15 AM +0000 1/4/06, Roland Merrick wrote:
>Greetings Al, thanks for your comments on the content selection last 
>call [1]. As part of this you start with --The basic idea is to 
>support UAAG10, Guideline 2 
>"<http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#gl-content-access>Ensure 
>User Access to All Content."   --
>
>The DIWG assigned this comment the identifier Gilman-1
>
>This mail documents DIWG's response to your comments.
>
>DIWG Response
>=============
>
>We have not accepted this comments. Our reasons are as follows . . .
>
>There is a tension between the aims of UAAG10, of those that wish to 
>protect some groups of users from inappropriate content,(reference 
>to the metadata workshop in Dublin) and the physical capabilities of 
>devices. DISelect needs to take account of all of the reasons why 
>content selection may be needed and hence must have capabilities 
>that might not conform to the needs of any one in particular.
>
>Considering first the case of device capabilities, there are many 
>examples today of situations in which it is impossible to send 
>material to allow user selection. There are well known situations in 
>which sending material intended for a different device, perhaps 
>using an entirely different markup language, will cause it to crash. 
>Worse, there are known cases where inappropriate content can damage 
>the device to the point where it needs to be returned to the 
>manufacturer. Although such situations should improve in future, one 
>aim of DISelect is to support the currently available range of 
>devices, so considerations like this are of great importance.
>
>In the case of inappropriate conent, there are groups who need to 
>ensure that, for example, adult material is not sent to devices 
>being used by minors. Any scheme that only supports user selection 
>of content at the device cannot be used as part of a system that 
>supports such use cases.
>
>DIWG is sympathetic to the aims of UAAG10, but feels that it would 
>be inappropriate to try and use DISelect to enforce appropriate 
>author behaviour. We suggest that a better solution would be to 
>expand WCAG to cover appropriate use of DISelect to support 
>accessibility.
>
>DIWG also suggests that guidelines like UAAG10, while appropriate 
>for current and legacy technologies, lack some ambition in 
>environments where better semantic information, better information 
>about user preferences and distributed adaptation can truely tailor 
>user experience for a much wider variety of users. It should surely 
>not be the case that simply because someone has a disability that 
>they are forced manually to tailor their user experience? DIWG would 
>like to see the possibilities of adaptation together with proactive 
>involvement from assistive technologies, provide an environment in 
>which the vast majority of users with or without disabilities can be 
>served without having them having to intervene manually.
>
>[1] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2005AprJun/0012.html
>
>Regards, Roland

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 04:36:45 UTC