- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 05:25:45 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- cc: User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
An alternative would be to talk about specified views - there are many views possible, and many views will be used. For content authors, it is likely that they will specify features for a few views at most. But it is often a false assumption (not often enough at the moment, but nonetheless true) that tehre is a primary view - content is already being designed to work on graphic terminals, as voice, or using tiny handheld devices. At the WAP/W3C workshop there was discussion on the requirements for integrating voice systtems with mobile phone based systems, and it was clear that a requirements is to be able to specify the presentation of several views, i.e. optimise it for those views, and that another requirement is that the content could be presented in some reasonable way by a default specfication for the wider range of views that are actually used. Charles McCN On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Al Gilman wrote: There is a pragmatic reality in terms of "the content which is exposed in the view which, as the document left the server, is the default or most likely view to be exposed. This how the author expected the content to be viewed is all too frequently limited to this view." On the other hand, the term 'primary' clearly comes down to far in the direction of favoring overly narrow expectations. We are trying very hard over in EO to get authors to think in terms of a range of views which achieve equivalent effects. We probably still need a compact epithet for this category. My nominee would be 'initial.' To the extent that there are alternate equivalents available in the document bundle, they are "author's" content just as much as the 'initial' content. This may be based on my overexposure to programming languages, but to me this bears the right connotations that this is what you get if you do nothing, but there is no special reason why that is the value it has to have. As in specifying an initial value for a type [see XML Schema]. The group may prefer 'default,' but I tend to expect that 'initial' would actually be more often interpreted right than 'default' when one comes to readers outside the programming community. Al At 10:56 AM 2000-09-20 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote: >At 09:13 PM 9/18/2000 , Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote: >>i strenuously object to any such classification of content along the lines of "primary" and "secondary" -- like it or not, it implies an objective (albeit fallacious) hierarchy of importance, based upon a purely phenomenological interpretation of content... > >I have to agree with Gregory; it is simply incorrect to label one >modality of content as primary and the other as secondary based >purely on the medium of that content. Such language can easily >give incorrect impressions. > >--Kynn, even though you didn't explicitly ask _my_ opinion :) > >-- >Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ >Director of Accessibility, Edapta http://www.edapta.com/ >Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ >AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/ >Accessibility Roundtable Web Broadcast http://kynn.com/+on24 >What's on my bookshelf? http://kynn.com/books/ > -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia September - November 2000: W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2000 05:25:46 UTC