RE: Comment LC-491: modality independence

I have the same problem - unless you can tie the author's intention into
this you don't know what sensory modality

Nice suggestion.  

Note this is a ****? item to mark it as such (Substantial change?)  


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christophe Strobbe
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 7:14 AM
To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Subject: 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 Thursday, 25 May 2006 14:36:13 UTC