- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:35:37 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Al, right on the ball as usual, wrote:- > The virtue of a database approach to maintaining our > knowledge of barriers and how to avoid them is that > the information pertinent to a specific design decision > can be isolated by algorithm and rich backups provided > to the user of the knowledge. A database system does appear to be the way to go, for Web Content Accessibility guidelines, for all guidelines, for guidelines. If we had some kind of location independant method for storing the information that GL produces, that would be a significant first step towards achieving this goal. Chas. in particular has outlined some ideas on the list that deserve attention. William has been telling us that we need user-orientated presentations, and I'm always talking about Web-over-Hierarchy axioms. But we've done very little in the way of real work, and beign a pragmatist, I'd like to put forwards some concrete proposals. Firstly, much of the stuff in WCAG is superfluous to the task of educating people about accessibility, and the rest of the material is superfluous to being an accessibility reference standard. WCAG can't fulfill that many roles without getting overloaded, and hence my Haiku deeley. Chas.' idea of separating out WCAG into three domains is at least a start, but of course those domains can undergo further divisions. The idea is that a link between files is very nearly as good as the file being there. Al suggested something about a version of XHTML with XLink capabilities, or XHTML marked up with many classes and extracted with XSLT. Chas. and I often talk about RDF databases. With the XML Accessibility Guidelines, we opted to go with XHTML + classes + XSLT, but I'm more adverse to experimenting when it comes to WCAG 2.0. I note that we still don't appear to have any techniques, even though we have a DTD for the techniques. I would suggest RDF for this, but I have the feeling that if I did, I'd be expected to carry out the implementation of the damn system, and if it goes wrong, then I'll only have myself to blame :-) So I'll cop out of that one The simplest tool that we all have at our disposals, and is proven to work reliably, is HyperText. William showed how customization through HyperText works: we just come up with our own favourite views of a body of work, and then publish it. The trick is to make sure that the body of work is properly split up. If we have to use FradId's, then that's a failure :-) So I agree with Joe that Chas.' idea to modularize WCAG is the best idea that's been expressed all year. Now, can we start doing it? -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 19:35:39 UTC