- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 10:22:24 -0500 (EST)
- To: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
- cc: A.Flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Scott, my point about semantics in HTNML and my point about poor design being allowed to persist seem to me closely related. Of course there is no information about sports in the example you have given, but that is not an artifact of it being coded in HTML, rather it is that you have not supplied that information in the first place. If you look through the WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines you will find code such as <a href="#def-something" rel="glossary">something</a> which uses HTML coding to provide semantic information. The move towards XML and RDF are to make it easier to customise this information, but it is perfectly feasible and reasonably common to do it in native HTML, although there is a serious problem with tool developers being backward about creting tools that support this. You should look through the HTML specifcation for the attributes title, rel, and class in particular, and for elements such as blockquote, samp, cite (also an attribute) which are designed to code specific types of semantics (the class mechanism allows for the general encoding of semantics). Some of the features of poor design that I am arguing against are: departing from the notion that everything that is useful should be a first-class object - in short, that it is harmful if the information that one link is related to sprot and another is not is only available to a back-end engine which will release it or not based on its interpretation of user needs. This is a fairly central part of the way I understand Tim's design for the web, although it is a principle applied much more widely in general information systems design. This is also the major problem I have with the approach you have described - it takes away from the user the ability to know what is going to be given to them, by doing the interpreting of what they want for them, based on further information that is not available to them. I think this is also linked to the discomfort people expresed about getting a "different" version of content. Of course it could just be that I am misunderstanding the way your material is built in practise. promoting the continued existence of sites that do not meet user needs, on the basis that an alternative is available. This is a repair strategy, not an aim. I believe that Chuck and I are expressing similar ideas, in that Universal Design is the goa we would like to achieve, and feel it is possible. At the same time, we are explicitly reognising that there is a danger in assuming that one answer will fit everybody - although this is the principle behind universal design it is only true if the desin is good, and that always needs to be tested more. However, the risk is not significantly altered if there are a couple of alternatives - as I pointed out with the scenarios I wrote earlier in this thread, there are a large number of alternative cases to be covered (which is why I think Universal Design principles offer the most effective and efficient approach to solvin the problem). Cheers Charles On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Scott Luebking wrote: Hi, Charles Read through the pages on the Semantic Web. Why is the Semantic Web needed? I believe you might be confusing strings of text with semantic information. They are not the same. For example, suppose that a web page is about Chicago. Let's say that among links there are: <A src="#chicago_cows.html"> Chicago Cows </A> <A src="#chicago_bulls.html"> Chicago Bulls </A> The strings of text are "Chicago Cows" and "Chicago Bulls". Now, suppose that the web page user wants the links related to sports to be at the top of the page. If a user wanted his user agent to put the links related to sports at the beginning of the page, how would the user agent know whether the "Chicago Bulls" link or the "Chicago Cows" links are related to sports? The semantic information is lost when the HTML is created. For a personalized web page, information about the category of each link can be stored in a database. The links can be ordered according to whether the link is sports related or not and then the HTML is created. Are you objecting to personalized web pages? Are you saying that it is a poor solution for meeting user needs? What is your definition of "badly designed"? I believe a beautifully graphic personalized web page can be a good design for a large number of users. Why should a personalized web page have to accomodate all users? The more important issue is that each user gets the information he wants in the format most easy for him to use. I think that what Chuck posted from the CAST web site really makes a lot of sense. Scott
Received on Saturday, 1 January 2000 10:24:00 UTC