W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Preparation for 27 April teleconference [Was Re: AGENDA: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 27 April 2000]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:55:00 -0400
Message-ID: <39079DF4.61E898CA@w3.org>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote:
> At 10:18 PM 2000-04-25 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >   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.
> "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.

Similarly, in another email [1] you write:

   "There is no fundamental semantic difference between what is
    called data vs. metadata.  They both play the same role as 
    bearers of information  Semantically, it is all just
    one class of data.  This is a little-understood fact of 
    information science."

I think that we should focus on one particular view of
the data: the author's view of what pieces of content are
equivalent. The author marks up these pieces in a way that
allows user agents to recognize the pieces as equivalent. I think
the Working Group wants those equivalents to be easily 
interchangeable or reachable in the same view. 

Proposal (both P1):

2.1.a Provide easy access to all equivalents.

 The equivalents could be rendered in the same viewport, through
 tool tips, by querying selected elements for attribute values,
 etc. A document source view would not meet this requirement since
 it would not be easy for most users. I don't think that it should
 be a requirement that all equivalents be rendered in the same
 viewport since that may not help some users, and some users may
 want more than one of the equivalents rendered at a given moment.
 Again, it's understood here that an "equivalent" is one that
 the user agent can recognize. It's also understood that this
 means "access through the UI" (which will be stated elsewhere).

2.1.b Provide access to all content.

 A document source view would meet this requirement, though
 a structured navigation view would be better. All content
 need not be available in one view (though that's the easiest to
 do). All content need not be available in every view.

Am I missing any important pieces?

 - Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0210.html
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 21:55:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:26 UTC