- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 05:32:15 -0800
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 11:25 PM 1/2/01 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>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 "
One semanticist coming right up.
Once we've agreed that there is information/content/sub-verbal stuff then
ideophone/ideogram/ideohapt/ideo-pheromone/+(?) divisions are all
presentational. But we had to agree in the first place. That we're all in
this together and have mutual membership makes it at least possible, even
when it seems unlikely.
The guidelines <h>will</h> be in words because we've agreed that these
(however presented) are the chosen "first among equals". As we hippify to
pictures/touches/tastes we may get better but this round will be
screen/print/spoken "text". Complementation is "desirable" but neither
sufficient nor necessary - although our ruminative discourse about the
latter will continue.
The underlying problem is that illustrative definition is murkier than is
verbal. At root all are illustrative/depictive/conveyant/communicative/+
dealings with the unspoken/(?)unspeakable "reality level".
I hope that's saner than it sounds?
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 08:31:39 UTC