Re: Discussion list guidelines

Hello All,

I'll put my comments after the item I wish to mention. I use GWK:: for this.
>Why are smiley bad ?
>
>For one thing they're international.
>
>MS Word recognizes some basic smileys on the fly (even changes them in
>some dingbat), why wouldn't a smart screen reader do the same ?
>
>Maybe we need to use the same TODAY/NEW dichotomy we use in Markup
>guidelines ? 
>
>For the future, we could define a list of <10 basic smileys whose
>usage would be OK and semantics well defined.
>
>Like :-) for "smile", ;-) for "complice smile", :-| for "tough life", :-( for
>"unhappy". etc. 

GWK:: yes we could introduce markup. That would work for example, instead
of writing "smile" a person could  enter the HTML equilivant to this. It
seems a lot easier to just write smile, grin. So, we start with a concept
everybody knows like frown and then we teach them the ascii art version,
and then we teach them the HTML notation for the same thing they knew in
the first place. Sounds like a lot of work for nothing. Oh, by the way,
thanks for that list of ascii art. I never knew what that stuff meant -- my
screen reader never reads it anyway. GRIN.


>> 5) If new text is inserted within the body of the Old message,
>>     mark all new text with author's initials followed by two
>>     colons (e.g   GV::  or  GK:: )    At the end put:  End GV.
>
>First I think it should mention that the pieces of the old message,
>when copied in, should be "greaterized" one level more, that is, "> "
>added in column one.
>
>Now, the algorithm to find original text is not that difficult:
>it starts in column one and is not a >.
>
>I understand it's not in the current set of capabilities of the
>average email/screen-reader combination (to search for something that
>is not something), but it's easy enough that some procmail (unix)
>filter that adds begin and end marker around original text could be
>implemented in no time.
>
>So, again, it's a matter of the tool used, the information is 
GWK:: In a lot of mail packages a > is inserted and this wraps the line so
in column 1 there is no > instead it is in every other line. How would the
tool deal with this. Also, what is the difference between creating a new
tool and using the same tool people already know about. This means a higher
level of training to learn to use yet another tool.
>
>Sure, adding DD:: adds some info, but as it both requires more work
>byt the author and somehow clutters the visual for sighted user, it's
>in the "accessibility OR else" design that I don't really like.
>
GWK:: I think you are wrong here. If you have a large document that you are
commenting upon, you don't want to go through the document visually to find
the editor's comments. You search for GWK:: to find these.


Snip

Best
George
>
George Kerscher, Project Manager
PM to the DAISY Consortium
Recording For the Blind & Dyslexic
Email: kerscher@montana.com
Phone: 406/549-4687

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 1997 22:46:59 UTC