- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:09:56 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
At 10:18 PM 2000-04-25 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote: >Hello Working Group, > >As starting points for discussion at tomorrow's teleconference, >please consider the following comments and proposals. > > Proposal: > > 1) Leave 2.1 checkpoint text the same. > ("Make available all content, including equivalent > alternatives for content.") > 2) Require that for content known by specification to > be for users (including information in style sheets), > that a document source view does not suffice. While this may feel good as a principle, I have a problem with the "which content is meant for users" concept. Let me correct that. I think the WAI and the W3C should have a problem with that distinction, as it creates fatal flaws in e-commerce, not just disability access. It is just the users of minority views [such as people with disabilities] who suffer the consequences first. [Canary in mineshaft...Universal Design...] There should be no markup, ever, that is completely beyond the user's discovery. It can take N steps to expose and explain it, but it should be reachable somehow. This is a key element of the information architecture. If it isn't self explanatory, the explanation should be discoverable by an obvious process. With the Web at our disposal as a way to wire in layers of backup, there is no excuse for less. I would like to check this with the PF WG for a formal position. May I register a dependency and promise a report on this? The tactical problem with this split is that it points at a body of literature which is simply not clear on this point. To put this language in the guidelines invites a large rathole of deferred argument. The strategic problem is that the distinction should not exist in the ideal case, so why insert it now? "What is for display" is view-specific. Not document-information-generic. "What is for the user" is not a valid concept in the Universal Access architecture. It is a residue of "view chauvenism;" someone's assumption as to what view the user is using. All the properties are informative, and may be exposed in the over-the-wire encoding as text or (where available) in a friendlier transform of that encoding. Al > 3) A document source view (or better) satisfies the requirement > of making content available when otherwise difficult > (e.g., style sheets, script source) or when it is not > possible to know from the markup language specification > which content is meant for users. > 4) The "document source" view is not a view of the > document object (the structured navigation view). The > user should find for example, raw script and style > sheet data in the source view. > >-- >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >Tel: +1 831 457-2842 >Cell: +1 917 450-8783 >
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2000 10:04:36 UTC