Re: author-defined content vs. "primary" content

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.
  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  <>          
  >Director of Accessibility, Edapta     
  >Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet
  >AWARE Center Director            
  >Accessibility Roundtable Web Broadcast 
  >What's on my bookshelf?               

Charles McCathieNevile    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative            
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