Re: Including content modes in 4.1

In the new draft I am considering a couple things.  First, is this related 
at all to our already existing checkpoint on natural language:
1.4 Identify the primary natural language of text and text equivalents and 
all changes in natural language.

I know it is not covered there now, but could it be?  How do you indicate 
vowel marks?  Is it through which characters are selected or is it through 
markup in some way?

If not, I've made 4.1 and 4.2 more broad by saying, "4.1 Choose 
technologies that support the use of these guidelines." and "4.2 Use 
technologies according to specification."   In which case we could put 
something about the concept of "content modes" in the success criteria as 
well as the benefits.

Adam, when I release the new draft in a bit, could you look at these two 
checkpoints as possible places to add something about "content 
modes."  Although,  as I said, could we use terms people are familiar 
with?  As much as possible I would like to avoid defining new terms.

Thanks,
--wendy
At 03:17 PM 7/23/01 , Adam Victor Reed wrote:
>"Fonts", "Character encodings", "Character sets" etc are orthogonal
>to the problem - current Hebrew fonts include both characters and
>marks in all character set encodings. I suggested "content modes"
>precisely because that phrase does not have a pre-existing meaning.
>I do not think that "usage" would be understood correctly;
>"usage" in current usage (?!) refers to vocabulary and syntax, not to
>phonetic hints (which is what vowel marks in semitic and tone marks in
>east-asian languages are used for).
>
>It is not true that "there are two types of Hebrew". The customary
>practice is to include as few or as many vowel marks as the targeted
>reader needs to disambiguate the content. This implies a contextual
>continuum of content modes, ranging from no marks at all (e.g. in
>notes to oneself) to all available marks (e.g. in content intended for
>new users of Hebrew or for people with reading disabilties). Most
>everyday content is somewhere in between. For example, newspaper
>articles provide marks for unusual words and for foreign names once or
>twice, then continue without marks after the context is established.
>This is analogous to usage, which is also sensitive to audience and
>context - but also analogous to the choice of font (e.g. the use of
>Fraktur for historical content in German).
>
>So: "Usage" could be misleading. If "content modes" is too broad, then
>I would like to hear suggestions from others.
>
>--
>                                 Adam Reed
>                                 areed2@calstatela.edu
>
>Context matters. Seldom does *anything* have only one cause.
>
>On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 09:54:42PM -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
> > At 08:49 PM 2001-07-18 , Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> > >Victor,
> > >
> > >As I understand the specific issue that Lisa raises, there are two 
> types of
> > >Hebrew, one with vowel marks and one without.  If someone is presented
> > >Hebrew without vowel marks, they might not be able to read it (either
> > >through a processing disability of their own or their user
> > >agent's).  Therefore, we want to suggest using Hebrew with vowel marks.
> > >
> > >One way to generalize this is to say
> > >"use fonts, languages, API's, and protocols..."
> > >or
> > >"use character encodings, languages, API's, and protocols..."
> > >or
> > >"use character sets, languages, API's, and protocols..."
> > >
> >
> > AG::
> >
> > Yes, "content mode" is too broad.  But all the alternatives you raise have
> > good
> > meanings that aren't what we are after.
> >
> > I am afraid that we may have to fall back on the general term 'usage' here.
> >  In
> > other words, say "Follow usage that is compatible with assitive tranforms.
> > For
> > example spell Arabic and Hebrew out with explicit vowel marks, to ensure
> > Text-to-Speech compatibility."
> >
> > The use of the term 'usage' gets the reader thinking in terms of how 
> you use
> > the features of the natural language.  That is pretty much what we are 
> talking
> > about when the question is spelling.  What characters you use to indicate a
> > word is a natural language concern, above the level of character encodings,
> > and
> > not implied by just the selection of language in cases such as this 
> where the
> > langauge is subject to the variation in spelling usage."
> >
> > It is easy to make clear in the form of a heuristic slogan, "Write it down;
> > spell it out."  But that catches the direction, but not the extent of the
> > imperative.
> >
> > Al
> >
> > >This is based on my understanding of these documents:
> > ><http://www.w3.org/International/O-charset.html>http://www.w3.org/Internat
> > ional/O-charset.html
> > ><http://www.w3.org/International/O-fonts.html>http://www.w3.org/Internatio
> > nal/O-fonts.html
> > ><http://www.w3.org/International/O-MissCharGlyph>http://www.w3.org/Interna
> > tional/O-MissCharGlyph
> > ><http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTML-tags.html>http://www.w3.org/Intern
> > ational/O-HTML-tags.html
> > >
> > >"content mode" seems too general a term and one that I do not see used in
> > >the Internationalization documentation on the W3C site.
> > ><http://www.w3.org/International/>http://www.w3.org/International/
> > >
> > >I also think that we might be able to include this as an example of
> > >selecting which (markup) language to use - assuming that with SVG and
> > >future support of styling languages one could select or create a Hebrew
> > >font with vowel marks over one without.
> > >
> > >Regardless, this is a good example to add as part of the rationalization.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >--wendy
> > >
> > >
> > >At 08:59 PM 5/18/01 , Adam Victor Reed wrote:
> > >>I suggested the addition of content modes to Gudeline 4.1 as a
> > >>possible way of dealing with the vowel mark problem in Hebrew and
> > >>Arabic, which was brought to our attention by Lisa Seeman (vowel marks
> > >>are required to support screen reading in user agents, and for
> > >>accessibility to people with limited reading ability.) If there
> > >>is no objection, I would like to see Gudeline 4.1 updated as follows:
> > >>
> > >>4.1 Choose content modes, languages, API's, and protocols that support
> > >>the use of these guidelines.
> > >>         Content modes (e.g. Hebrew with and without vowel marks,)
> > >>         markup languages, multimedia formats, software interface
> > >>         standards, etc., vary in their support of accessibility. When
> > >>         choosing which technologies and content modes to use, consider
> > >>         how easy it is apply these guidelines. Where feasible, favor
> > >>         content modes and technologies that:
> > >>         * support assistive technology in user agents;
> > >>         * permit equivalents to be associated with or synchronized
> > >>           with auditory, graphical, and multimedia content;
> > >>         * allow the logical structure of the content to be defined
> > >>           independently of presentation;
> > >>         * support device-independence;
> > >>         * are documented in published specifications and can be
> > >>           implemented by user agent and assistive technology
> > >>           developers.
> > >>--
> > >>                                 Adam Reed
> > >>                                 areed2@calstatela.edu
> > >>
> > >>Context matters. Seldom does *anything* have only one cause.
> > >
> > >--
> > >wendy a chisholm
> > >world wide web consortium
> > >web accessibility initiative
> > >seattle, wa usa
> > >tel: +1 206.706.5263
> > >/--
> > >

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 12:06:40 UTC