RE: Reopened issues - week of 19 April 2004

Thanks, Gregg.

I was thinking that we didn't want to disallow discourage/disallow
providing defintions and/or pronunciation in context (i.e., as on-screen
content where appropriate).  But perhaps I misunderstood the intent of
these specific criteria: do we specifically want to *require* that
location and/or identification of meaning and pronunciation happens in
some automated way?

I agree that we'll need both very good techniques *and* clear
checkpoint(s) (in a checklist) to make this work.

Am I right in thinking that Ruby[1] might furnishsome techniques for
indicating pronunciation, at least in XHTML? Or is it so specific to
East Asian languages that it can't generalize?

The SSML 1.0 Candidate Recommendation [2] suggests other techniques for
indicating pronunciation for user agents that support synthetic speech.

John

[1]
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis/
http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:25 pm
To: John M Slatin; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: 'Wendy A Chisholm'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Reopened issues - week of 19 April 2004


1) We definitely need to define these terms if we are going to use them

2) note that "data model" and "markup"  are programmatically
determinable -
but "context" usually is not.     Even "data  model' and 'markup' are
not
however unless they are done in a standard way known to the 'program'
that
is 'programmatically determining'.   Thus the techniques or rather the
checklist is needed to determine if this item has been met I think. 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of John M Slatin
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:04 PM
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: Wendy A Chisholm; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Reopened issues - week of 19 April 2004


Thanks, Jason.

I've just been looking at 1.3 after reading Lisa's message, and it
occurs to me that the language there may be useful with respect to issue
#330 and difficult phrases like "programmatically located" and
"programmatically identified."  Would it work to say "... Available
through context, markup, or a data model"?

Or perhaps we should go in the other direction first: we need
plain-language equivalents for "programmatically identified" and
"programmatically located."  Everything I've tried ends up sounding like
either a use case or an aspect of user agent functionality; I'm having
trouble getting at what the content provider should do.

John


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 4:07 am
To: John M Slatin
Cc: Wendy A Chisholm; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Reopened issues - week of 19 April 2004


John M Slatin writes:
 > 
 > Re: Issue #330: On 25 March I sent a proposal to the list to reword
> success criteria under 3.1 [1]. The idea was to replace phrases such
as  > "programmatically located" in 3.1 Success Criteria with "available
> through context or markup," as follows:

One of the main reasons for using expressions such as "programmatically
identified" and "programmatically located" was to cover the case where
the content is not written in a markup language, but is provided in
another format that allows structural distinctions to be preserved.
Examples include XML information sets, API's, and data structures such
as the structure trees used in tagged PDF.

If we want these to be included, we need to say something more precise
than "context", and something more general than "markup".

Suggestions?

Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2004 15:45:56 UTC