Re: Minority opinons (equivalency has no 'target,' only 'partners')

agree - I thought I had already said so in this discussion but maybe not.

Charles

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, David Poehlman wrote:

  I too think it is worthwhile.
  
  Jon Gunderson wrote:
  > 
  > Al,
  > I think that the issue of having different representations of the same
  > information and that they are all equally valid is an important point the
  > guidelines should stress.  I support language (especially for checkpoint
  > 2.3) that emphasizes this concept in the guidelines.  I like Al's proposal
  > for checkpoint 2.3[1].
  > 
  > Jon
  > 
  > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0085.html
  > 
  > At 09:25 PM 10/12/2000 -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
  > >This is going to sound contradictory, but I need to tell you this so there is
  > >no confusion later.
  > >
  > >I am prepared to argue in WCA that they should be prepared to back off on the
  > >separation of text and formatting, and be more tolerant of HTML inline
  > >formatting properties where the intent behind the formatting is captured and
  > >disclosed, e.g. in the markup or metadata.  This hinges on the definition of
  > >suitable conventions in the formats, but I would be in favor of being more
  > >flexible on this point is such can be arranged.
  > >
  > >But the behavior available to the user through the good offices of the user
  > >agent should be to remove, on user option required, any hint of bias among the
  > >members of an equivalence group. The requirement to make all equivalents
  > >(fellow members of an equivalence group) available is to be extended with full
  > >force regarding all of them equally, without a shred of distinction.
  > >
  > >This is the same kind of symmetry well understood in the randomization of
  > >candidate order in the printing of ballots.  Since the order of appearance has
  > >the effect of biasing the voter, the order of appearance is scrambled across
  > >different voters' ballots to minimize any unfairness created across the
  > >breadth
  > >of the voting populace.
  > >
  > >We need to have a logical model of equivalence relationships which is that
  > >simon pure, as the foundation on which the "access to all options, when there
  > >are equivalents," language of the UAAG is built.
  > >
  > >Al
  > 
  > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
  > Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
  > Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
  > MC-574
  > College of Applied Life Studies
  > University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
  > 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
  > 
  > Voice: (217) 244-5870
  > Fax: (217) 333-0248
  > 
  > E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
  > 
  > WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
  > WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
  
  
  

-- 
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, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 09:26:04 UTC