Re: FW: 4.1

I dont think it is so much that we all get the same message, whatever that
might mean, rather that we all get a handle.
one person visiting the opera might come away with the score, another might
only have a title.
They both have a handle.
So it is important that we ensure that all users get a reasonable handle on
resources.

I do have to say that I have found the linux community incredibly patient
and willing to help explain minutae.
similarly juries are expected to make decisions about events well outside
their life experience.
finally when using google we all come across documents not written for us,
but which we non the less need to be able to interpret.


jonathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "john_slatin" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Cc: "'Lisa Seeman'" <seeman@netvision.net.il>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: FW: 4.1


>
> Yes, there is an ambiguity in the way we talk about the term. On teh one
hand
> when we produce guidelines for "Web Content" we mean "this is the way that
> you should produce content in order to communicate with the audience". On
the
> other hand we talk about the "content of the Web" as things that exist in
a
> concrete form already.
>
> So if we are talking about "what a person could create, in order to
> commmunicate" then I don't think we need to assume that the language has
been
> fixed. It is obviously untrue to assume that an image which is yet to be
> created has already has its form fixed. From another perspective, it is
> equally untrue to assume that a page which presents information usiing
> graphics and a page which presents the same information through textual
means
> (even including well-written textual equivalents) are "the same content"
in
> the strict sense of something that has a fixed form. But there is no
reason
> to assume they are not capable of communicating, for a given audience, the
> same information - "the content of the page" in the way Lisa is using it.
>
> I think Jason got the crucial point when he said that we need to ensure,
in
> applying success criteria, the condition that the meaning is not changed.
>
> For example, it is reasonable to change the terminnology and phraseology
used
> if the author opines that the quintessence of their message is preserved.
Or,
> it is OK to change the words if the author agrees that the message is the
> same.
>
> On the other hand, if a particular change does change the meaning, then it
is
> not appropriate - that is a failure criteria.
>
> Jason is right that there are very few exact synonyms. but then there are
> very few exact phrasings of an idea either - otherwise we could write one
set
> of guidelines, everybody would understand, and our job would be easier
(not
> to mention that of the EO group). The flexibility and inexactitude of
> language can be useful to us as well as causing us problems.
>
> Cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, john_slatin wrote:
>
>
>   Lisa writes that "in talking about content we are talking about
information
>   handed over-- its meaning."
>
>   This works only if we acknowledge that we're talking about "content" on
at
>   least two levels of abstractoin simultaneously, and that doing so may
cause
>   serious confusion. I have operated under the assumption that when we
talk
>   about *Web content* we are constrained to talk about what can be created
by
>   some person or people some authoring tool and rendered by some user
agent.
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2002 17:00:15 UTC