Comment LC-491: modality independence

Last week, we had a survey on SC 1.3.5 [1], which currently reads: 
"Information required to understand and operate content does not rely on 
shape, size, visual location, or orientation of components."

We proposed a change to "Information required to understand and operate 
content does not rely on presentation properties that are particular to one 
access modality." and the following definition for "access modality": "The 
type of communication channel used for interaction. This might be, for 
example, visual, gestural or based on speech. It also covers the way an 
idea is expressed or perceived, or the manner in which an action is performed."

Would it be better if we used the phrase "sense modality" instead of 
"access modality"? "Presentation properties" was also found to be 
problematic, but these properties are usually properties of content. 
Borrowing a phrase from 1.3.4 ("variations in presentation"), this would 
result in the following:

<proposed>
Information required to understand and operate content does not rely on 
variations in presentation of content that can be perceived with only one 
sense modality.
</proposed>

"variations in the presentation of content" could then be defined as
<proposed>
changes in the sensory appearance of content, such as pitch, shape, size, 
visual location, and orientation
</proposed>

Does this make any sense? Do we need a definition of sense modality?

Regards,

Christophe


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20060518-teamc/results#xc14


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Received on Monday, 22 May 2006 12:13:49 UTC