- From: Jamal Mazrui <empower@smart.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 23:56:47 +0400
- To: <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
- CC: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Good points! I am reminded that plain text is not optimal for hard copy braille or audio renderings. I do maintain that plain text is superior for universal accessibility over any other single format. In addition, I submit that this accessible format is also optimal for a lot of people, including folks like myself who like to read with our favorite reading utility, rather than a viewer that was not designed as a reading program for someone with a print disability. I also see that a format with a markup language can offer more structured navigation through a document. Eventually, I hope to have an HTML viewer that lets me navigate and edit text as easily as my favorite DOS tools (Talking Directory and WordPerfect Editor). Until this happens, however, I'll probably continue to use this plain text based reading environment that I find highly productive compared with other options of which I am aware. With help from others on this list, I have been able to find most, though not all, of the documents I was seeking in plain text. I am still looking for a complete, current version of the SMIL specification and the page authoring guidelines. I can produce these myself with a conversion utility, so am mentioning their abscence as a point of information, accounting for all the documents I was seeking. As a plain text formatting suggestion, let me encourage the flowing of paragraphs such that not more than 80 characters are output per line. This enables someone reading online to continuously scroll downward through the text, without losing information on lines that were too long to display on conventional 80 column text terminal dimensions. Most of the plain text documents I downloaded from the W3C had a maximum line length between 95 and 160 monospaced characters. Again, this is a minor formatting issue, but one I think is worth mentioning to anyone interested in producing high quality plain text. If anyone else interested in W3C/WAI issues would consider promoting the development of a plain text recommended specification, let me know. I think it would be a standard worthy of attention by the W3C and its constituencies. Cheers, Jamal On 1998-12-05 jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU said: NASCII text versions of the HTML and CSS specifications (and Npresumably others) are available from their respective pages, as Ncompressed tar or zip files. NThe main disadvantage of ASCII text (with no markup) is that all of Nthe structural and semantic distinctions conveyed by the HTML are Nlost. It is therefore important to emphasize that plain text is Nonly minimally accessible. For instance, if one wished to produce a Nproperly formatted braille copy, it would be necessary to Nre-introduce the markup codes. Similarly, audio formatting software Nsuch as AsteR and Emacspeak/W3 require markup in order to produce Nan efficient rendering of the document that conveys the necessary Nconceptual distinctions and allows for structured navigation. NWhile I agree that some ASCII text documents can be read easily by a Ntraditional screen reader, it is important to be careful in Nensuring that Net-Tamer V 1.11.1 - Registered
Received on Sunday, 6 December 1998 22:56:58 UTC