- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:47:49 -0500
- To: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Al Gilman'" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, "'Davey Leslie'" <davey@inx-jp.org>
I really like Davey's "widening the doorway" analogy. I hate to contribute to the bulk of this thread -- but I'll do so anyway! Web-enabled PDAs and cell phones are our friends. They are the leading edge to low bandwidth considerations. I think it's more important that we address the digital divide and consider people with older browsers and slow dial-up connections, but big business isn't concerned with selling to them. Interoperability and standards works to both audiences. Presentational markup adds bulk to HTML code. A strict structural-only page is relatively small. Of course, incorporating CSS elements in the HTML page adds quite a number of kilobytes -- but linking to a style sheet is very light weight. Adding the advantage of using device-oriented CSS you would think the PDA/cell people would really be on this bandwagon. > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Al Gilman > > At 11:32 PM 2000-12-17 +0900, Davey Leslie wrote: >> I wonder if that's the correct analogy. It seems to me more >> like widening a >> doorway so that all may pass more easily. I don't believe >> that use of CSS >> makes anyone "take a longer route." Or does it? > > Many of the people building user agents for mobile devices of > cell phone size > and smaller represent that it does, although others contest > this point. > > The fact that its syntax is inconsistent so it adds parsing > code to the > application is an example of how this is true that is easy > for many people to > see quickly. > > But basically, the answer is yes, it inherently does. The > GUI is generally > considered to be more cognitively accessible than command > line interfaces > because it allows "direct manipulation" of what is affected > by user actions. > There is a direct parallel to this in "direct qualification," the > expression of > properties in_situ at the point where they apply. This is > logically more > direct, and it takes both mental discipline and computational > effort to do the > same thing in a more indirect, rule-based way. > > The indirection can have real benefits, but it definitely has > real costs, > too. > > I think I recall Tim Berners-Lee talking about a principle of > "lowest-level > language" but I am failing to find it in the "architectural > design notes" > section of the W3C site. It is a little like Occam's Razor. > We do have the > line attributed to Einstein: Everything should be as simple > as possible -- > but > no more." The "principle of lowest level language" treats > abstraction as > complexity, and says "What people will use in the end is the > medium that gets > the message across with the least amount of abstraction > overhead." Of course, > in my work I am constantly up against the fact that, like > left-brained and > right-brained people, people differ with regard to the extent > that they find > abstraction adds or removes complexity. Consider the other > Einstein quote > about "Nothing is so practical as a good theory." Science > and technology is > rife with examples where patterns or rules simplify the world > around us and > make it easier to understand and manipulate. > > The rule-based approach comes naturally to those of us who > actually got the > message in high school plane geometry and mastered proofs. > But it is more > indirect and more demanding on the infrastructure. > > We need some of that indirection to achieve the abstraction > required to retain > flexibility in what the User Agent does with the received > data. Graceful > transformation requires an infrastructure of encoded abstract > knowledge. > Getting the abstraction in the encoding requires some > indirection, the best we > know how to build languages and formats today. But we must > not assume it > comes > free. At least in terms of where PF is dealing in the halls > of the XML > working > group, every ounce of indirection has to be justified. > > There is a lot of discussion on this point that is buried in > Member private > space from the PF consideration of the XSL FO document > (technology). One of > the things we have been failing to do is to connect that > discussion with the > publicly visible record of the WAI. > > We don't have a Note on "The access perils and safety net of > XSL FO" to go > with > the more upbeat Notes on CSS, SVG, and SMIL.
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 10:48:18 UTC