- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:25:46 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 09:12 AM 2001-01-02 -0800, William Loughborough wrote: >Is there any sentiment for including the matters in 3.7 "Supplement text I would admit to some sentiment in that direction. In fact, the use of 'supplement' here, where 'complement' is by contrast clearly the big-tent term, raises a red flag after all we have been through. We need a semioticist to give us the language in which to say this. It is not just diversity in sensory channel, there is also diversity among different kinds of communicative gesture: designation vs. evocation, and either words or pictures can fall in either of those categories. I'll see what I can find. Somehow we have to communicate both a first-among-equals status for text without going to Lombardiesque excess. Yes, today, text is the most important thing; but definitely not the only thing. Because yes, there are people for whom it is the _last_ thing they need. Al >with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate >comprehension of the content" into guideline 1 "Design content that can be >presented visually, auditorily or tactually, according to the needs and >preferences of the user." > >One possible aim is to differentiate the notion of "content" from the >purely "text" connotation we've been focused on? > >Love. >
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 23:20:57 UTC