Re: Structure Again!

Hmmm, I think we are all on the same part of the map. So I have tried to
answer the questions and see where the common ground is, even when it doesn't
appear to be...

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Anne Pemberton wrote:

  Understood, William. So, enter the concept of "classes" instead of using
  the conventional mark-ups (B, I, U)that have meaning to students learning
  to use textbooks and people who use word processors regularly, but not
  perhaps beyond that group ... In marking up a piece of a textbook, one
  would use "definitions" to mark certain words in bold and perhaps a certain
  color ... and the fact that these words are "definitions" would be conveyed
  to the user rather than just intuited ... How exactly is this conveyed?
CMN
With a style rule, that says "make definitions purple", or whatever. In case
there is no rule provided by the author, HTML browsers have a setr of default
rules (they are slightly different from browser to browser - for example iCab
identifies abbr and acronym elements by default, but netscape doesn't).
AP
  How does the user use this page? Do they look at the class Definition and
  decide they'll show that in blue, or what?
CMN
The reason for using HTML elements (dfn, abbr, cite, etc) is that it is
fairly easy to define rules for them. Where there is a special case, done by
the author proviing a particular class, the user has to look for the class
and change the style if it doesn't suit them. Where the author has used
"one-off markup" such as a font tag or a style attribute, it is harder again.
But it is not impossible - for example, tidy will collect all the things that
use the same kind of font tag and turn them into a class with a style, so you
can change the style. not perfect, but better.
WL
  >What isn't clear to most who argue about this is that: THE BROWSER, IN
  >CHOOSING TO RENDER <EM> AS ITALICS IS USING ITS OWN DEFAULT STYLE SHEET. It
  >is just making choices that seem intuitively obvious to most users - but
  >it's still a style sheet!
AP
  That makes sense, William. It's a "standard" style sheet.
  And I understand that some pages fit neatly into a "standard" style sheet,
  but others fit into a "custom" style sheet from the author ... if the
  cutomization is to suite a specific audience not well served by the
  "standard" it is "accessible", but if it goes into a "custom" style sheet
  because it's fun to do for the author, that is an entirely different
  concept of web pages ...
CMN
Hmmm. This gets into the rather deep question of "what is art"... Actually,
the problem is that there are a few languages where the meaning of something
is explicit, like a number of HTML elements. To make the distinction between
style that is provided for a particular class of things that are meaningful,
but can't be labelled with an explicit HTML element, and style that is
provided becuase it is cool to have different coloured letters in the same
word, we need something else.

That something else can be done using RDF schemas - Dan Connolly from W3C has
done some work on this already. But essentially it involves doing the styling
(just like normal) and then stating that "these six styles are just for
decoration" - the equivalent of putting alt="" on a butterfly image that
doesn't mean anything in a page but was put there because it looks cool.

WL
  >The efforts to provide meaningful inclusionary procedures for people who
  >have other conditions aren't deliberately overlooked - we just haven't much
  >experience in those areas but are willing to learn.
AP
  I know. And, speaking as a web author, sometimes the "fun" between author
  and user misses it's mark ... But, then sometimes, hearing your audience
  say "oh, wow!" is worth a lot more than dotting all the i's and crossing
  all the t's in the great advances of the world vision!
CMN
Without art and stuff done for fun I think the world would be a pretty sad
place. And there is meaning in some art - sometimes the "fun" reaches its
mark. Otherwise nobody would have bothered providing ways to do style in the
first place. The beauty of art in Web content is that it doesn't have to be
in one medium.

Trying to describe why I like Dali's "Narcissus" more than Picasso's
"Guernica" in a way that doesn't rely on seeing them is difficult, but not
impossible, and incredibly satisfying. But being able to create animated
cartoons that are also audio presentations (depending on the way the user
chooses to get them) is a really really cool thing. It does take some
i-crossing and t-dotting (errr...) though.

One of the things that stands out about Dali's work is that the execution of
it was done very skilfully, so that without knowing what the shapes and lines
are or represent it makes a strong impression. The same applies to the kind
of simple line drawings in Newspaper cartoons. Or to a piece of music.

the next bit is based on some fairly subjective stuff that is hard to express
in words, and relies on a couple of pieces of music that people may have
never heard (or never heard of...)

My personal taste covers a lot of "loud noise called rock and roll", like the
band AC/DC. But it is fairly easy to hear that the rather short, simple, and
repetitive Pachelbel's "Canon" is carefully and well constructed, while the
equally short, repetitive, and slightly more complex (it has words, for
example) "I should be so lucky" by Kylie Minogue is not. Visually, it is
possible to represent Pachelbel's "Canon" and reflect the balance and play
that makes the music memorable. "I should be so lucky" doesn't transfer so
well without the standard visual cues of a pouting singer - which can be used
interchangeable in any number of film clips, and don't reflect much about the
particular song.

An alternative perspective is that the art is in the pictures, and the music
of "I should be so lucky" doesn't represent it well. But another alternative
perspective is that the Canon is just intellectual ivory-tower drivel, and
Kylie's song really makes sense to its audience, who appreciate the interplay
of the visual images, the memories associated with hearing it, and the basic
rhythm that is easily "accessible"...

In the end, it seems to me that the i-dotting is valuable in either case,
because it makes it easier to provide the Ooh's...

Chaals (Thanksgiving isn't something I really understand, and don't have much
conection to that set of traditions. But I can see why it is meaningful to
people)

  	If you enjoy midi music, there's some neat Thanksgiving music selections
  at http://www.night.net/thanksgiving/songs11.html-ssi
  When I did that site with the kids this week, I sang a bit for them, even
  tho the tempo on "Over the River" is a bit quick...! Me, who was was a high
  school teacher, singing to little ones to a computer! What a hoot! Oh, what
  the technology brings out in each of us!

  				Anne



  >
  >--
  >Love.
  >                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
  >
  >
  Anne L. Pemberton
  http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
  http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
  apembert@crosslink.net
  Enabling Support Foundation
  http://www.enabling.org


-- 
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 Friday, 24 November 2000 13:46:05 UTC