- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:32:38 +0100
- To: wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
aloha!
since clarity and coherence are in short supply in my neck of the woods,
i thought that i'd pass this by wai-xtech
COMMENT: i think the PF/WAI should give the call for consensus for
the HTML5 RDFa editor's draft
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0736.html
an enthusiastic endorsement with the following caveat, which probably
should be carbon-copied to the W3C Communications Team:
PROPOSED:
While the PFWG commends the HTML5 working group and the document's
editors, for such rapid action in drafting an RDFa in HTML5 document, the
PF/WAI does have a substantive comment on the use of ASCII art in the
document. Currently, the document reads:
<quote src="http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#invalid-xmlliteral-values">
<code>→</code> symbol is used to denote that the line is a
continuation of the previous line and is included purely for the
purposes of readability:
</quote>
but the "→" symbol is ASCII art, as it is a modality specific
means of indicating a new line. This is especially problematic for those
who interact with computers aurally and/or tactilely, as it creates a
perceptual black hole for those for whom the character entity cannot (or
cannot readily) be ascertained by a non-sighted reader. Moreover, the
character entity may not be vailable in the users' system, or may be
rendered as a placeholding "textual" symbol
To date, four different screen readers were tested, and none were able to
speak the → symbol as rendered by an HTML parser or when the
symbol
was copied-and-pasted into a plain text (unicode formatted) document,
thereby DECREASING the document/example's readability, rather than
universally enhancing it.
When the glyph rendered for the character entity "→" is directly
queried with a screen reader, one does not hear "right arrow" (nor is
it glossed to indicate for thos whose systems cannot render or parse
the character entity in any meaningful way as a "new line indicator"),
but simply as "blank". When read in context using read-all or
read-by-paragraph or read-by-sentence or read-by-line, the rendered
glyph for the character entity is not spoken.
Thus, there is a need to explore an alternate set of conventions for
such useages and conventions which is not modality specific, as is the
use of character entities to generate ASCII art.
In terms of markup, the explanatory blurb excerpted at the beginning of
this post, in which the use of → in the example which follows to
indicate continuation of a line, one could encode the symbols in an
ABBR
<abbr title="same line">→</abbr>
or
<code>value=yes|no<abbr title=" default">*</abbr></code>
but that tactic obviously doesn't work in cases where the document
author intends raw code to be rendered in an example. Note, as well,
that it is assumed in the second example, above, that the CODE element
will be used by assistive technology to switch from a user's normal
punctuation settings to "Speak All" or "Speak Extended" as per
individual user's needs, desires, and/or preferences, so that the
pipe glyph is used as a boolean indicator and SHOULD be exposable
by an assistive tech to a user.
POST-SCRIPT: that's as far as i've gotten -- no cut-and-dried solution
to the problem statement;
As for the contents of the document -- having reviewed the RDFa syntax
and primer specs extensively, and having implemented RDFa in XHTML 1.1 i
think that the HTML5 RDFa editor's draft should be published as a public
working draft.
However, the fundamental (and recurring) problem i have with the
HTML5 RDFa editor's draft, which is located at:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/
is its use of non-interoperable ASCII art. It is up to the WAI when and
how to address the issue of the use of ASCII art through the use of
charater-entity codes that are graphics, such as a right arrow, and
not "text" in the "normal" sense. -- especially those for which there
are no readily available or known means of generating the intended
glyph from the keyboard, so as -- for example -- to choose the previous
and next sections in the multi-page "view" of the HTML5 draft
gregory.
ACTUAL POST-SCRIPT: a tangentally related issue is discussed from an
XHTML2 point-of-view which needs to be ported to HTML5 terms and the
HTML5 wiki, can be found at:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml2/wiki/XHTML2/pre_obsolete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
-- Arthur Bloc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita - oedipus@hicom.net AND gregory@ubats.org
Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
United Blind Advocates for Talking Signs (UBATS): http://ubats.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 03:33:17 UTC