RE: Issue 556 and 669

> > Regarding
> > 1. "Structures and relationships of the content can be derived 
> > programmatically (for example, through a markup or data model)

What is important hear is that the AT's (assistive technologies) know
how to handle them

refer to XAG (XML accessibility guidelines) 
Having title one , title to is problematic because how do the  At's know
what that is?

The same is true for classes or formats.

The aim, as always is to hold on, and transfer to the user and AT the
meaning and concepts contained in the page. 
Structure is one of them

And yes, RDF is a good way to go .

All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:06 AM
> To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
> Subject: RE: Issue 556 and 669
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Regarding
> > 1. "Structures and relationships of the content can be derived 
> > programmatically (for example, through a markup or data model)
> >
> > One question I have always wondered.
> >
> > If structure or relationships can be determined through automated
> > heuristics, would that count too?    If so, then having the 
> headers all
> > "look" like headers (and be consistent within levels) would 
> satisfy if 
> > common tools or converters were available that could 
> 'determine'  the 
> > headers, lists, etc by just evaluating a page and its visual 
> > formatting. After all, that is all that the sighted person has.
> 
> Are you supposing that the heuristics would be 100% reliable 
> across a wide variety of content, and amenable to 
> implementation in server-side or client-side software? If so, 
> but only under these conditions, I would agree that 1.3 is met.
> 
> The problem in practice is that styles are not completely 
> uniform across documents, with the result that any heuristics 
> are prone to error, whereas markup supplied by the author 
> (given an appropriate authoring environment) is highly reliable.
> 
> Suppose there were metadata supplied by the content author or 
> a third party that established a completely correct mapping 
> of style properties to element types, but the content itself 
> was encoded presentationally. Or suppose there were a 
> structure tree with pointers back to the presentational 
> format in which the content was stored (essentially what 
> tagged PDF is). Both of these in my opinion would count as 
> satisfying 1.3, even if the structure resided on another 
> server, whether maintained by the author or a third party, as 
> long as server-side or client-side software implemented the 
> necessary mechanism for matching the structure with the 
> content and constructing a presentation to satisfy the user's 
> requirements.
> 
> Work on RDF mechanisms in this area, notably by Lisa, should 
> also be mentioned here.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 07:14:49 UTC