Re: perceivable structures

When we wrestled with this, the proposed definition had problems because
1. It isn¹t well defined what the default presentation is
2. There may be relationship that appear in the default presentation that
don¹t have to be perceived to understand the content

An example of the latter would be structural information in an image, where
the information is communicated via alternate text.

Loretta

On 2/22/06 12:28 AM, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:

> This definition seems backward.
>  
> perceivable structures
>  
> relationships in the content that are necessary to perceive the organization
> of the content.
>  
>  
> I think it needs to be
>  
>  
> perceivable structures
>  
> relationships in the content that can be perceived from the default
> presentation.
>  
>  
>  
> RATIONALE
>  
> What we are trying to achieve is to make sure that any relationships that are
> obvious from the presentation ­ are also obvious when looking at the markup.
>  
> Yes? 
>  
>  
> 
> Gregg
> 
> ------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/ <http://trace.wisc.edu/> > FAX 608/262-8848
> For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/
> The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>   <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
> 
>  
>  
>