- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:03:17 -0800
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
- Cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20001102112100.029144c0@mail.gorge.net>
At 09:18 AM 11/2/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>I'm really curious about this ongoing discussion of multiple interfaces,
>mainly to ask what the point is.
The real question is "interfaces between what and what?" The concern is not
with the "interfaces" but with what the interface is to.
The idea that there is some underlying semantics that are to be
communicated is the focus of our attention. The nature of the "interface"
used to connect to that information isn't the point, rather that the
information be "accessible". If the original form of the content is a
barrier of presentational artifices, then access will be impaired, denied,
or tedious.
If there is no semantic information that can be communicated through
regular human language then we have nothing to talk about and without that
talk (be it via voice, signing, or text) there is no other means of
reliable communication among us. Jonathan's point is that there *ought to
be* a means of doing this without resorting to text, but so far we haven't
found any agreeable means of doing that. The "everyone" we connect with
"everything" is presupposed to understand language, given which that is
what we store and retrieve. A multiplicity of "interfaces" is completely
irrelevant. If there's no *there* there then it doesn't matter how you
present it.
KB:: "we can't simply decide to discard an idea because I haven't yet
convinced you that it's a good idea."
WL: I don't know what the "idea" is that you refer to. If there's such a
thing as "content" in the sense we've been using it and it's kept separate
from structure/presentation then we have no problem. If you believe that
there's no such thing in your "real world" as "content" - the stored
representations of experiencable data - then we have a big problem. If
that's "stuffy academic exhortations" then color me academic. No matter
what face one puts on it there's something between <body> and </body> that
relates to information pertinent to real life experiences and making that
available demands that it adhere to certain fairly well-defined principles
and to ridicule attempts to find out what someone is talking about isn't
where it's at. Your "...the absurd WCAG 1.0 statement that alternate
interfaces are a 'last resort'." is not even remotely close to what the
guideline actually says, which is "...Where it is not possible to use a W3C
technology, or doing so results in material that does not transform
gracefully, provide an alternative version of the content that is
accessible." Now, I don't mean this very pejoratively but to use your
phrase in this connection is demagoguery. It may be that many of us
interpret this to mean it's a "last resort" but that's not justification
for calling it a WCAG "statement".
KB:: "If by "uncluttered access to the underlying semantics" you mean that
the site provider must provide the structured data model that they use on
their site to the end user and/or her user agent, then I could not possibly
disagree with you more."
WL: I not only don't mean that "the site provider must provide the
structured data model" (or I would have said so), but I don't have the
foggiest idea of what that means. I have a fairly clear idea of what
"underlying semantics" means. It means "meaning", "content", "data",
"materials". It might have to do with "data models" but I am clueless about
that.
KB:: "The issue is access to the content. A method which provides that is
our goal."
WL: Hoo sofa king Ray! we are in full total agreement. If the content isn't
there it can't be accessed. If it's there then how to present/structure it
is decidable and that decision will probably best be made by the user, not
by anything/anyone else although the user might opt to use whatever final
form presentation (default?) the author chose. This ain't TV.
KB:: "One way to do that is to simply send the data model. It is not the
only way, and I find it bizarre, from a technological point of view, that
you are insisting that this be a requirement."
WL: In the naivete induced by my creeping senility I wasn't even aware that
I was insisting on "sending a data model" since I have absolutely no idea
what that means - "from a technological view" - since my model of
electronics is still vacuum tubes and my programming language is assembler.
KB:: "It is the equivalent of saying that all database-driven sites should
allow direct read-only access to the database."
WL: If you say that's the equivalent, maybe so. I don't have the expertise
to decide if that would be a good thing or not. It somehow sounds like a
Good Thing but I have no idea if it should be a prioritized item. Never
heard it mentioned before. Is it a bad idea? Useless? What?
KB:: "Our goal is to set it up so more people can use the web and nobody is
denied access."
WL: Now we're back on track. Now if you think you have the one true message
from on high about the best way to do that, go ahead on. If it works it
will be saluted. Accessibility trumps Guidelines about accessibility. If
you have a wonderful new magic way to do that, wail.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2000 15:02:04 UTC