Re: What's presentation?

At 08:42 AM 12/1/00 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>So are these (a) different content/structure or (b) different 
>presentations?  Please answer (a) or (b) :-).

I don't mean to be copping out but I think the answer is "both". IOW the 
same content can be both structured and presented in more than one way. Is 
a pie chart different from a table or a bar graph or a... The content can 
not only be presented in various ways, it can be structured in various 
ways, but the *separated* content is still the content. The message is 
*the* message. The medium is *a* message (almost unto itself).

The medium (presentation) includes variable structures. Most programming 
tutorials used to start with "turn off your computer". In the same sense of 
them trying to train you to begin with well-formed pseudo-code so a lot of 
writing advice has to do with starting with an outline (structure) and 
filling it in with content. The usual cliche is that 5 % of programmers 
(writers) can program (write) without commenting (outlining) and 95 % of 
programmers (writers) think they are part of that 5 %.

The possibility of getting individuals to change their long-ingrained 
habits of "wysiwyging it" seems remote. The possibility of getting the 
tools they use to make this innate in the process is more hopeful. E.g. 
when someone puts up a centered, enlarged, specially enfonted phrase, it 
might be heuristically determined that the intent is for this to be some 
level of header. Same with all kinds of "presentational" devices, including 
italics, bold, underlined, font changes, colorizations, etc., etc. The 
tools must ask "you've just changed color here, does this mean anything?"

Potentially every markup element (even a "purely decorative" one) is 
structural. Why did you put this excerpt from your text into a little box 
over there under the style class of "sidebar". The jargon is that the 
markup has meaning but the method used to emphasize/highlight/enhance it 
is: presentation; under ultimate control of the user, even though a choice 
is made by the author.

If I don't want anybody to ever see my stuff in other than "chilly font" 
that's just tough. If I'm convinced that the purpose of my content's 
communication is aborted by removal of "chilly font" then I'll just have to 
explain that somewhere (metadata?). These are rare circumstances and are 
even amenable to codification, e.g., when we read to a child saying "see 
how 'brrrrr' has icicles dripping from the letters?" or to a blind child 
"the author has illuminated the letters of 'brrrrr' with little icicles" 
can be handled with some combination of content, alt, and/or longdesc.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Friday, 1 December 2000 12:07:28 UTC