- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:53:29 -0400
- To: GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU
- CC: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, "'Katie Haritos-Shea'" <ryladog@earthlink.net>, "'3WC WAI X-TECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > Sorry > > I lost the track. Are these definitions or recommendations. The > imperative sentence form doesn't look like a definition. > > Smell and vibration are not equivalents of very much I don't think. > If you mean a vibratory equivalent of a ring.... yep -- but only if > device will always be in contact with the person when the alert is to > take place. > > Smell?? I guess you could smell a call coming in. need good air > circulation or a very strong smell > > But as equivalents for most information......? > > I think you can (and should) make it general in the definition. > > But I think we need to be careful on the examples of equivalents to not > confuse verbal and non-verbal modalities. > > > Oh - and where we say "text" shouldn't we say if it is 'data-text' or > 'visual-text'.. (I'm not suggesting these terms -- but you get what I > mean UAAG 1.0 defines "text" as a sequence of characters, and points to the Character Model for the Web draft. Other things like pictures of letters (glyphs) are not considered text in UAAG 1.0. _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 14:56:20 UTC