- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:58:57 -0700
- To: gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, ij@w3.org
IJ:: "We've spent a lot of time discussing the term "content" in the UAWG." WL: And in the ATAG, ERT, GL, and a bit in the EO Working Groups. The "conclusion" reached is essentially that even when we start talking about pinning it down, there is no agreement that it can be pinned down. The very title "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" might be a case in point. A major problem is that "content" is a word whose meaning is without "ownership". A similar anarchy occured in ATAG with the word "prompt" which has a fairly specific meaning in software engineering circles and a rather different one in everyday conversation. By putting one (actually two in the cited glossary reference!) particular interpretation of how the term is used in one document just won't have any effect on people reading this stuff who *know* what is the "semantic content" of the word "content" - it means different things at different times and in different contexts to different people under various circumstances, if you take my meaning. The little exercise attempted at: http://rdf.pair.com/expo.htm using "content" was undertaken not in the sense of rigor demanded by a formal document but as a means of explaining what to a great many people not privy to our counsel what we mean when we (rather often and variously) say "separate content from presentation" and all its cousins also involving such things as "structure", "semantics", "styling", "appearance", and probably other words that most people think they know how to use (what they "mean") but are encountering in, to them, strange combinations. To a great many people "presentation" *is* "content" as is "structure". I don't expect to resolve the niceties of how to express all the relationships in a "throw-away" note, just to begin making a few dark things clear. Ian says "However, we've spent a ton of time on what "content" means and I would urge you not to assign meaning to the term other than the document object is constituted of content." To which William replies that the intended audience for "Trial A" comes from a population that has spent statistically hugely more time deciding what "content" means and they couldn't care less what we decide <g>. Further if one does a search of all the WAI and various ML worryings about this matter it will be seen to resist the sort of categorization we might seek. We might call it the "content of content" problem. Or even the "'content' of 'content'" situation. I appreciate the advice but in the instant context I think the main result of further messing with this particular word will be further obfuscation in the very area I intended to clarify. Parenthetically (a Table of Contents is often in fact a compendium of Structures with no reference to "content"!) when I asked Prof. Goldfarb, whose urge to the assembly at the WAI kickoff breakfast in Santa Clara was to take this (what may be one of the last) opportunity to evangelize the separation of content from presentation, what the SGML originators thought of this, he made it clear that it wasn't all that clear. At least I think that's what he said, or I'm pretty sure that's what he said, or maybe the "Trial A" piece, Ian's email, Al's reply, and this somewhat convoluted and self-reflexive response are reasonably probative examples of why this has the same order of unresolvability as whether {ALT="" and ALT=" " discussions} have led to any conclusion? To the audience I thought I was trying to reach <EM><STRONG>presentation=structure=content</STRONG></EM> and I hoped to ease them into an awareness of what some of our jargon means and how it applies to enhancing a usable/accessible/semantic "Web of Trust" and all that other high-sounding stuff. Thank you all (mostly in advance) for your comments, suggestions, encouragement and counsel. Keep them coming because one of the main problems we encounter (particularly in GL and E & O) in getting visitors to our documents to avoid CUS (cryptic usage syndrome) and ADE (arcane definition effect). I will bet that a landslide-sized majority of people who use <H1></H1> not only think of it purely as a formatting shortcut, but aren't even aware of what, in its context, "structure" means. It's just easier than putting in all the font-size, alignment, etc. tags that come free with that element. Loser buys the first round in Bristol. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Saturday, 26 August 2000 20:57:05 UTC