- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:06:30 +1000
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:51:41 +1000, Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov> wrote: > >>> There are another test and study about the browsers support in: >>> http://www.codestyle.org/css/media/embossed-BrowserSummary.shtml > >> I am not certain then what is gained by an emboss media type. > > I agree. The table above makes it pretty clear that it is not doing > anything for us yet! I don't understand why separate TTY from dynamic > Braille display, both are fixed pitch (grid), continuous, and > interactive. The best resource I have found indicates that the emboss > media type confounds the distinction between Braille hard copy and > dynamic Braille displays. I think the idea is that embossed braille is on a page, and has different layout requirements to a dynamic braille display, just as print and screen presentation is often different. TTY is indeed grid, but for a different use case and there may well be differences in the way information should be presented - different approaches to contraction and abbreviation, numbers, etc... But I don't know. I am trying to second guess the people who wrote it from a position of weakness... better to ask them directly I guess via the www-style list or similar. > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html#media-groups cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 13:06:41 UTC