Re: Draft text for summary attribute definition

Robert J Burns 2009-03-01 21.26:
> On Mar 1, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Robert J Burns 2009-03-01 20.43:
>>> On Mar 1, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>>> As for your proposal directly. I don't have any strong objections 
>>>>> to this approach. I also think your proposal would work equally 
>>>>> well with either version A or version B.
>>>> Yes, I guess so. I saw text bit in version b which spoke about other 
>>>> users than speech and braille users, and I was not certain I agreed 
>>>> to that.
>>> Could you be more specific


> I understood Joshue's comment to be about general users or users who did 
> not need any extra information to consume the table.
> However, could you discuss specifically which users targeted by version 
> B that are not targeted by version A that led you to not support version 
> B. I'm not trying to confront you on this, I simply want to make not of 
> the specific objection on the wiki page. Two differences I see between 
> version A and version B targeted users are those with cognitive 
> disabilities and users of non-visual UAs (who may not necessarily have 
> visual disabilities). So though I had originally assumed you meant those 
> with cognitive disabilities, I have to admit I'm not sure which group of 
> users led you to not support version B.

I meant those with cognitive disabilities. I am not certain that 
they can be targetted the same way as those who are unable to see 
the content. (E.g. may be they need fewer words, and not more words.)
leif halvard silli

Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 20:33:45 UTC