W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Braille style sheets

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>
Message-ID: <op.sorf04p5w5l938@researchsft>

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:51:41 +1000, Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>  

>>> 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



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:25 UTC