Re: General Exception for Essential Purpose

At 12:40 PM 10/29/00 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>Thus multiple interfaces can be constructed by the content creator, 
>through carrying out appropriate processing of the semantically and 
>structurally rich source

 From all of this I am led to imagine a "semantically and structurally rich 
source" but keep wondering if there will be such - and if so, most of what 
ensues goes back to the notion of *a* source. In practice if there are 
multiple sources they may not be equally "rich" and the hypothetical "most 
accessible" solution cannot ensue. The siren song of "final form" with 
incidental addenda of "accessible other" as the actual case in multiple 
source "solutions" should at least be considered. Not "how can this be" so 
much as "how will this be".

So long as authors are clueless that <elements> are de facto structure 
there will be structural poverty. So long as meanings are only discernible 
via retinae/literacy/sonicisms there will be semantic poverty. The problems 
we (all, including pwd) encounter are not with medium but with message, or 
degradation thereof. The guidelines don't care howja do it, but whacha do. 
If you can get it across with pictures, wonderful - but "where's the beef?" 
- if you can have user-specified parameters, great - but show it's been 
done, rather than just doable. We will never preclude inaccessible 
authoring practices but we can provide sanctions concerning them, if we but 
identify them. "Page" may not be a valid construct for that purpose - in 
fact isn't - but even if we call the "product" a "program" it still will 
have identifiable characteristics permitting evaluation of potential 
inaccessibility nexi.

In the case of "multiple choice" sources/methods/solutions one of the most 
valid choices is often "none of the above", or "some of this, but not that 
much", etc.

The biggest "gap" is that guidelines 5 and 6 aren't parallel to the first 
four.

My inability to provide clarity on this must not be mistaken as a failure 
to understand the problem, but a fumbling for how to bring "AHA!" to the 
forefront without invoking "DUH!"

For openers;
         First, do no harm.
         Erect no barriers 'twixt user and content.
         Respect user choice of interaction mode (in/out).

If "content negotiation" doesn't mean "user chooses" it's not negotiation 
but coercion.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Saturday, 28 October 2000 22:32:15 UTC