- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:14:35 -0800
- To: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:08 AM 1/28/01 +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>there may be things we can do to help.
The "we" in that are the authors, more so than the guideline fabricators.
The job of particularizing what presentational factors are to be considered
- and how - is not a guideline/checkpoint issue, IMO.
Although it must be pointed out that presentation must be: 1) semantically
communicated; 2) considerate of device/user
capabilities/needs/traditions/+, it need not concern us that "However when
you plot a Gaussian distribution of reading skills you get a "hump" between
-2 and -3 on a normalized scale. That hump is coursed from LD" - by which I
mean that although as human beings we are "concerned", it should inform,
but not necessarily appear in, the guidelines/checkpoints.
Our real attention should be on assuring that presentational communication
is revealed semantically, while noting that there are myriad problems with
the methods we've all come to know/love/"intuit"/use.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Sunday, 28 January 2001 10:13:07 UTC