Re: Draft text for summary attribute definition

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 20:33:46 UTC