On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:42 AM, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>
>> Category C
>> especially seems to me like something it would be wrong to put in
>> summary - if the information truly can't be found anywhere else,
>> then it
>> seems to violate the ideas of equivalent content and universal
>> access to
>> hide it from sighted users.
>
> No, I disagree. Why? Because the @summary is /providing/ equivalence
> through a textual description giving an overview or useful guidance to
> the user. A sighted user by looking at the content can /usually/
> understand the purpose of the table (issues with cognition and
> comprehension aside for the moment) and content relationships - all
> this
> takes is a glance over the content. So @summary is providing the
> glance
> as such that the sighted person /already/ has. So there is no way the
> use of @summary is discriminating against sighted users as it is
> providing equivalence for those who cannot see.
Category C was specifically about information that can *not* be
learned by looking at the table, or anywhere else; it is found only in
summary. That was my definition of Category C, which you said could be
put in summary. Quoting from earlier emails:
>> C) Additional information not found in the table at all, but
>> relating to
>> its contents.
>
> @summary could do this.
This was in contrast to categories A and B, which were descriptions of
the table's structure to aid navigation, and summaries of the table's
conclusions, so C is explicitly not either of those.
So if such information is put in summary, it would not be equivalent.
It would be providing information to non-visual users that cannot be
learned from seeing the table. It seems that summary is used at least
sometimes to convey such information. Would you agree that summary
providing additional information (not information about table
structure, or a summary of the table's conclusions, but brand new info
that is not in the table at all) violates equivalence?
Regards,
Maciej