W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

first review

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 01:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <1053591346.3ecc87327201c@hermes.webintellects.com>


well, at a first glance I will try and say what I would like to see and leave 
the  how we word it for now…


this is weak. Dyslexics who have a hard time coping their credit card numbers 
and filling in forms do not get any except in best practices of an extended 

3 –C2  decoding:
I would like to see some way to say at a minimal conformance that some publicly 
avilible decoders/ knowledge systems, and 95% of people  decode this correctly. 
This will be a hard one to word – but it should apply to both ambiguitly and 
diatric markes.

So resolve the ambiguities that are pronounce – general rules of context will 
not resolve them.

Specifically we could require that,
“ when the content is more important then the writing style, one remove 
Syntactic and Semantic ambiguity, “ (but not word ambiguity).

Syntactic ambiguity occurs when there is more than one possible syntactic 
parses for a grammatical sentence. For example, the sentence Fasten the 
assembly with the lever. This may be either an instruction to fasten the 
assembly using a lever, or an instruction to fasten the assembly, which has a 
lever attached to it. With the prepositional phrase with the lever can be 
attached to the verb or to the noun phrase object. However often a Syntactic 
ambiguity is caused by a word ambiguity- in our example the word with is 
ambiguous. With  could mean using or connected to. 
	Semantic ambiguity
Semantic ambiguity occurs when other knowledge sources are required to 
determine the meaning of a sentence.  For example, the sentence Start the 
engine and keep it running, the fact that it refers to the engine is not 
inferable from the single clause keep it running. The ambiguity is caused by 
the difficulty in resolving the pronoun. 
 were the context can not decifen the word

checkpoint 4-C2   and C3 – This one I do not get entirely. It seems to be 
requiring conformance/compatibility to proprietary technologies such as 
operating systems. This seems inherently against accessibility.  

I have a lot of issues with the wording hear. I propose that we first decide 
and agree on what we want to achieve with this checkpoint and then consider the 
I propose that what we want to achieve is interoperability and usefulness IE: 
that the accessibility options are available to the user without too much 
burden on the user– IE that they work in the different user environments as 
much as possible

What we want to avoid in this check point is to predigest the guidelines 
against new generation solutions, making them impossible to create them to 
achieve conformance…However if we can encourage new solution providers to 
become more interoperable then that is a good thing…

I propose that we reach consensus on what we want to achieve hear and then work 
on how we word it.

I also propose that checkpoint 3.E1  needs a redo in the new style. I will give 
it a try if others agree. 

all the best

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 04:15:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:30 UTC