- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 18:10:58 -0400
- To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Greg and All,
When you stretched your mind as in the following, you are not as
far from my basic concept as you seem to think:
At 04:21 PM 8/1/01 -0400, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>aloha, y'all!
[omission of thinking to this point]
>Supplement content with multimedia. [Priority 3]
>
>or
>
>Use multi-modal content to reinforce concepts and data contained in single
>modality formats/forms [Priority 1]
>
>which is really an ultra-abstraction of 1.1, so i tried again, and came up
>with:
>
>Utilize markup that enables multi-modal content to be associated with key
>functionalities, structural concepts, and data which is contained in single
>modality formats/forms. [Priority 1]
>
>which leaves me i don't know where, only quite far from what i hear anne
>expressing and quite far from what is in the new draft -- that every single
>thing needs an author-defined multi-modal equivalent, although i _think_
>that the last attempt could be construed to cover it...
>
>gregory.
Greg, Yeah, I keep doing the same mental exercise.... I am "settling" for
3.4 saying "illustrate" in lieu of being able to move 1.1 to a more
balanced approach. Markup that associates a body of text with it's perhaps
various illustrations in various modalities, is a wonderful improvement
over the current idea that everything has to be reduced to text. Text needs
to be associated with another or several modalities. They don't have to all
flash on the page at once .... they can be links ....
The imbalance is in Guideline 1.1 where text is assumed to be the lowest
common denominator, and it really isn't. Not to everyone. Not to those with
some disabilities ....
Anne
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 18:16:37 UTC