- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:12:58 -0800
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Al, Am I assuming correctly that we are asking authors to consider their "content" to consist of 1) text, and 2) exhibits (exhibits can include illustrations, tables, multi-media, forms, etc.) ... a page would then consist of "navigation", "presentation" and "content", with "presentation" being decorations, text,and coding that enables technologies/assistive technologies and "Navigation" being interaction with other pages including moving to the "next" page, etc? If I assume correctly, we are moving towards the new organization for the guidelines that Wendy proposed ... Am I understanding? Anne At 09:56 PM 1/4/01 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >This is a bit heavy going, but I haven't found time to make it simple. I hope >this helps a little to make what I meant clear. > >At 12:49 PM 2001-01-04 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Al Gilman wrote: >> >> At 09:47 AM 2001-01-04 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> >How about using 'illustration' and 'decoration' as the two terms. It makes >> >more sense to me that we describe a table as an illustration of a point >(or >a >> >paragraph of text, for that matter) than describing an image as an >exhibit. >> > >> >(except in courtroom drama <grin/>) >> > >> >> AG:: >> >> No. You miss the point. >> >> We need the unfamiliar concept, for which this is the most familiar term. >> >> You are trying to arrive at a partition composed entirely of colloquial >> terms. >> >>CMN: >>I'm not sure what you mean by a partition. I am trying to arrive at a series >>of documents that people can use and understand without looking up the >>definitions section any more than they really have to. >> >>It is worth being explicit in the definitions sense that we are using a rich >>(but common) meaning for a term, and not a narrow one, if that is the case. >> >>Besides, we use the verb "illustrate" to mean 'expand upon using graphics, >>sound, whatever it takes' in a checkpoint, with text that makes it clear. >> >>In other words, I'm trying to keep the language clear and simple, and think >>illustrate / illustration does it better than exhibit. It still allows us to >>be readily understood with the meaning we have, and we can reinforce that >>with an explanantion of what we mean in the glossary. >> > >AG:: > >'illustrations' belongs in our working vocabulary. 'exhibits' belongs in our >working vocabulary. Quote "_the_ two terms" unquote does not belong in >what we >think we have _decided_. It is too soon to know how many terms will be >required in the end to say what we need to say. > >1. I have no problem with calling illustrations 'illustrations.' That wasn't >what I said at all. I do have a problem thinking we an get authors to call >tables 'illustrations.' But not to get their editors to call tables >'exhibits.' That's how they talk already. > >2. As it turns out, we can't write the total corpus of documents we need >(clearly) without using overloaded terms, that is to say using _both broad and >narrow terms_ in talking about _the same thing_ _in different contexts_. > >You invoked the image of a partition, and gave the idea that 2. above was not >true, when you used the definite article 'the' in "the two terms." In >particular, this was not responsive [did not correspond] to my request to >insert (i.e. add) a more abstract notion into our working ideology. I didn't >say "call _the_ category 'exhibits'." I said "Please, let's _think_ in terms >of _a_ more abstract 'exhibits' category _as well_." > >I think it is fine to assert "illustrations and decorations are two kinds of >graphics that should be treated differently by the author." I absolutely >object to saying "illustrations and decorations are _the_ two kinds of >graphics >that should be treated differently by the author." We need to explore what >categories there are and what ways there are to handle them some more >before we >know how many categories are going to show up in the final explanation. > >I claim [broken record] that we need both to let the author call their object >something that they can understand, like an illustration, and also have our >infrastructure (a.k.a. data model, dialect description document or profile) >provide the clear connection that illustrations so marked are members of some >broader class [like exhibits] for which we have asked the User Agent to >provide >some minimum set of method handlers. The "graceful transformation" methods >are >likely to need these more abstract classes like 'exhibit' to cover the >waterfront of applications gracefully (and affordably). This way our access >strategies don't break just because we introduce a new class of exhibits. It >helps provide room for creativity and coping at the same time. > >We need headroom for finding patterns within the problems we have with >different kinds of items. I just asked to insert one of these generalizations >into the glossary along with the more immediately recognizable terms. The >general page structure case includes sidebars as much as figures and tables. >The sidebar is a story within itself, but has no one logical serial place in >the longer story in the background. A sidebar is the same kind of stuff as >the >background story, but not an ordered part of a common narrative thread. [the >electronic book model forces us to pick some global linear order, but this is >not actually the semantics of the content.] Equations and diagrams, on the >other hand, reflect changes in the pallette of what kind of stuff can go in >there. We need a document and site composition model that deals with both of >these kinds of distinctions. > >A case currently at point has to do with WCAG-required patterns of equivalence >among content fragments, and how the User Agent should provide connected, >related, or in-context access to these fragments [see Checkpoint 2.3 in the >latest draft.] The point is that while the WCAG requires the _author_ to make >these alternatives _equivalent_ in their (after human processing) >communicative >effect, it doesn't require the formats to provide _dedicated_ content control >mechanisms for disability access or for 'equivalents' required under the >WCAG. >It only requires the author to employ the content control mechanisms that the >format defines, so the user will have the opportunity to tune the presentation >to meet their needs. The User Agent completes the strategy by ensuring that >"content control" means "user control." > >The User Agent should give all users full control (and efficient, in the sense >of making the relatedness of the options obvious) over the ultimate outcome of >the content-control features defined in the formats. The access methods >should >be keyed to "content control structures," not "WCAG equivalents structures." >It is the former, and not the latter, that the formats define. Content >control >is actually a _protocol_ supported by option structures in the formats. The >user agent requirement is to make sure the user can control the end result by >some mechanism. It can be interactive or by configuration only or whatever. >See the UAAG for details. But the point is that the user agent methods attach >to the more general class of "content control" structures, not specifically to >just the equivalents that the author put there for disability access reasons. > >Al > >PS: The term 'non-linear' is too narrow. We need to get beyond 'single >threaded' vs. 'other.' Most of the rhetoric of page design is "multi-linear," >not "non-linear." There is more than one thread weaving through the bag of >contents. Almonst nothing is in there that doesn't participate in one plot >thread or another. Some of the pieces participate in more than one. > >>cheers >> >>chaals (although I may have still missed your point, in which case please >>explain again) >> >>AG >> Among terms in common use, you get a lattice, a taxonomy, and not a >> partition. >> And the concepts that we need extend up and down into abstractions and fine >> distinctions beyond what is colloquial, i.e. people don't _ususally_ speak >in >> terms that broad or that narrow. >> >> Our vocabulary has to include overlaps, generalizations, and >specializations; >> and both familiar and unfamiliar concepts. We need to connect with the >rich >> redundancy of actual common usage, and relate the uncommon notions we need >to >> get on with our job well to what is already there in the common notions. >> >> We need the non-colloquial sense of 'exhibit' from the tech editor >> community to >> complete our thinking about how the layout responds, because the >interaction >> with algorithms should probably be at this "not so natural to say" level. >> >> It's a compromise with the small brain power of computers. And it is the >> general nature of how we can actually get the idiot computers to do smarter >> things. Only ask them to do things a little smarter. >> >> Al >> >> >chaals >> > >> >On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Al Gilman wrote: >> > >> > At 11:45 PM 2001-01-03 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote: >> > >At 04:56 AM 1/3/2001 , Marti wrote: >> > >>Regarding the use of graphics, I would like to see some changes in the >> > >>terminology used. Graphics is too generic a term and I doubt that >Anne >> > >>really wants two different sizes of all the 'decorative' stuff. How >> about >> > >>we call the images used to augment text "illustrations" to distinguish >> their >> > >>purpose? >> > > >> > >This is a good idea, as it clearly identifies a _function_ >> > >rather than a specific set of _formats_. >> > > >> > >> > AG:: >> > >> > Please book the term 'exhibit' into the lingo. This is borrowed from a >> common >> > term referring to both figures and tables, but as intended it includes >> set-off >> > equations as well. Just the other day I discovered that we >shouldconsider >> > logos to be in this class. >> > >> > This serves as a superclass for illustrations and other items that enter >> into >> > the formatting logic in a similar way. >> > >> > Al >> > >> > >--Kynn >> > > >> > >-- >> > >Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> >> > ><<<http://kynn.com/>http://kynn.com/><http://kynn.com/%3E%3Chttp://kynn.com/ >%3Ehttp://kynn.com>http://kynn.com/><http://kynn.com/>http://kynn.com/ >> > >Sr. Engineering Project Leader, Reef-Edapta >> > >> ><<<http://www.reef.com/>http://www.reef.com/><http://www.reef.com/%3E%3Chttp >://www.reef.com/%3Ehttp://www>http://www.reef.com/><http://www.reef.com/>ht >tp://www >> .reef.com/ >> > >Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet >> > >> ><<<http://www.idyllmtn.com/>http://www.idyllmtn.com/><http://www.idyllmtn.c >om/>http://www.idyllmtn.com/><<http://www.idyllmtn.co/>http://www.idyllmtn.co >> m/><http://www.idyllmtn.com/>http://www.idyllmtn.com/ >> > >Contributor, Special Edition Using XHTML >> > >> ><<<http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml>http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml><http://kynn.com/+seu >xhtml>http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml><<http://kynn.com/+seux>http://kynn.com/+seux >> html><http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml>http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml >> > >Unofficial Section 508 Checklist >> > >> ><<<http://kynn.com/+section508>http://kynn.com/+section508><http://kynn.com/ >+section508>http://kynn.com/+section508><<http://kynn.com/+>http://kynn.com/+ >> section508><http://kynn.com/+section508>http://kynn.com/+section508 >> > > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Charles McCathieNevile ><<mailto:charles@w3.org>mailto:charles@w3.org><mailto:charles@w3.org%A0%A0% >A0>mailto:charles@w3.org >> phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 >> >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative >> ><<http://www.w3.org/WAI>http://www.w3.org/WAI><http://www.w3.org/WAI>http:// >www.w3.org/WAI >> >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia >> >until 6 January 2001 at: >> >W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, >> France >> > >> >> >>-- >>Charles McCathieNevile <mailto:charles@w3.org>mailto:charles@w3.org >phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 >>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative ><http://www.w3.org/WAI>http://www.w3.org/WAI >>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia >>until 6 January 2001 at: >>W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, >France >> > > 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
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2001 14:52:12 UTC