- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:34:22 -0700
- To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, wai-xtech@w3.org
- Cc: geoff_freed@wgbh.org, joeclark@contenu.nu
At 5:52 PM -0400 2001/7/05, gregory j. rosmaita wrote: >speaking from the "i don't care what the hell you call it, just make sure >it's there and that i can access it" camp, i vote to stick with "audio >description" not because it is the current "buzzword", but for the reasons >geoff cited in the post to the UA list -- it is a term that has made its >way into a W3C technical recommendation... [...] >gregory. Good points. Are there any reasons not to make the change? (I "feel" subtle differences myself between the two, but I think those are a result of my unfamiliarity with the 'audio description' term, and a good glossary could undoubtedly clear things up.) UAAG takes the approach of using BOTH terms. Might that be a good and useful approach, or is it stronger to simply choose one or the other? (I think it probably is better to stick with one term here.) >PS: [...] to my ears, "auditory >description" sounds pretentious and clinical, but i'm sure that a good >many of you would use the same adjectives to describe my posts, so take my >2 cents (american) with as many grains of salt as you deem appropriate... Dude, this is the W3C, we're -supposed- to sound pretentious and clinical. ;) I'm only half-joking here! Any group which routinely says "user agents" can't avoid opening itself up to charges of this type. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network Tel +1 949-567-7006 ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 20:22:38 UTC