W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Scott's Hypothetical Intranet

From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199910270424.VAA12533@netcom10.netcom.com>
To: kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com, unagi69@concentric.net
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

I've got a system which is highly dynamic.  It uses Javascript to
create pages on the fly by parsing XML and integrate the pages
with soundfiles.  (The XML parser is also dynamically configurable
so that tags can be specified at time of parsing.)
This allows flexibility for changing the presentation as needed.

Definitely not interoperable, but highly usable.


> aloha, kynn!
> thanks for your reasoned reply...
> i still think that the debate over specific tools is a red herring, and that
> the issue remains one of providing accessible, interoperable content, and that
> the provision of accessible, interoperable content need not be tailored  to the
> lowest common denominator (as i have heard people refer to Lynx in the past)
> anyway, that being said, i wanted to answer your question,
> quote
>   (Out of curiosity, does the difference between Intranet and Internet come
> across clearly on speech synths?  I know sometimes in normal discussion I can
> mishear the two terms when it's being discussed.)
> unquote
> perhaps i'm not the one to ask, as i had the word "intranet" in my job title
> for a little under 2 years, but i think that (depending upon the synthesizer
> and screen-reader, of course) that it is quite easy to distinguish between the
> 2...  admittedly, the faster the speech is output, the more they tend to blur,
> but intra and inter sound significantly different, at least to my ears!
> gregory.
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 1999 00:23:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:06 UTC