- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:02:28 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
[I did want to have a semi-detached discussion in PF, but I think this message may be clear enough that it helps with today's meeting. This message was originally sent over the PF list. -Al] At 09:24 AM 2000-04-27 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >Are we in violent agreement here? I have argued in the UA group that > >1. Everything needs to be available somehow (for example through a source >view) > >and > >2. That for things which are specified as having some kind of rendering a >source view or suchlike is insufficient, and they should be available to a >user in a rendered format. > Yes. That statement I can readily agree with. My chief concern as regards the UAAG is that nothing be said in the checkpoints which gives readers the impression that the scope of Guideline 2 is somehow narrower than what you state as point 1. in the above recapitulation. There are multiple requirements affecting the view repertory: [P1] You gotta give access to everything. [P2] You gotta take all readily achievable measures to make it usable. [P2/P3] Where there are multiple readily achievable presentations that have different usable/unusable characteristics for different groups, you have to give the user a choice. [priority level per view-alternative-choice depends on the worst case usability rating for all groups] Only the first of these fits under Guideline 2, so far as I can see. The way we state the second should not be allowed to create the appearance of watering down the first. Al >Charles > >On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Al Gilman wrote: > > ** summary > > The appropriate test is not whether the data entity is 'for machines' but > whether the machine knows a friendly amendment to try as opposed to raw > text encoding. If the processor knows, from the format spec [IDREF is the > ideal example] a better way to show it, it should. But it should cover all > the contents one way or another. > > ** details > > At 03:18 AM 2000-04-27 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >Yes. There are probably heaps of examples. I was just trying to give a couple > >each way. > > > >chaals > > > >On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Pawson, David wrote: > > > > Charles McCathieNevile > > > I > > >believe there is > > >content that is not intended to be read by the user, but > > >instead by the User > > >Agent. > > > > What about an xml file which contains its xslt stylesheet within > > it? Again surely thats for the ua, not for the end user? > > This example does not even merit a 'yes.' > > With current practices as regards what is in the stylesheet and what is in > the pre-style sheet (base XML) it is generally necessary to look at how the > author's stylesheet presented the content to infer enough semantic > knowledge of what the content is about to design a new stylesheet. [see > PS] The designer of the adaptive stylesheet is a high-cognitive consumer > of this information, but the individual consumer needs access to the data > as well, not just experts. > > But let's put this on a more positive footing. > > With IDREFs there is an obvious 'better' version of how to present them in > a property sheet in the form of a hyperlink, linking to the REFed entity > and using the usual sort of text summary techniques as are applied in > search results. > > The appropriate test is not whether the data entity is 'for machines' but > whether the machine knows a friendly amendment to try as opposed to raw > text encoding. If the processor knows, from the format spec [IDREF is the > ideal example] a better way to show it, it should. But it should cover all > the contents one way or another. > > Guideline 2 was right as stated. The collection of checkpoints under it > should not cut corners off its scope. > > Al > > PS: The division of information into content and presentation will be > ineffective so long as the actual author is only looking at one composite, > presented, result and the fatorisation is done by tools at the tool's > convenience. The data of document and stylesheet don't actually segregate > content and presentation information well enough to accept this example. > Go back to the example with the blind voter and the talking voting machine. > > > > > DaveP > > > > > >-- > >Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 > >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI > >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 > >Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia > > > > >-- >Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 >Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia >
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2000 11:57:12 UTC