RE: [css3-reader] compared to aural

> [Original Message]
> From: Phil Baines <phil@gnasp.com>
>
> What would the difference be to having a 'reader' media type, to the 
> currently existing 'aural' media type? Surly screen readers should be 
> encouraged to use the 'aural' media type. especially considering that 
> all the reader related styles are in fact called 'aural styles' are they 
> not??
>
> Apologies if I am completely off the mark with this one. I am rather new 
> to CSS in the grand scale of things.

The difference seems to be that "speech" is intended for a presentation
that involves only sound, while "reader" is intended for a presentation
that involves both visually displayed content and an auxiliary rendering
of the text using either sound and/or a braille-reader.

In other words it seems to be intended for a person who is sufficiently
visually impaired that the visual text is not easily readable, but does
retain sufficient sight to be able to manage a modest GUI for
purposes of navigation, etc.  How useful such a media type would
be, I don't know, but it is clearly differentiable enough to warrant
being able to do.

The main questions would seem to be:

1) Is this a single type, or should there be multiple separate
types. such as:
'reader-speech' - (screen + aural, for the visually impaired).
'reader-braille' - (screen + braille; for the visually impaired)
'reader-embossed' (screen + embossed, for the visually impaired)
'reader' (screen + some other basic media, for the visually impaired)

2) Are there any selectors or properties that would be appropriate for
this media type?

I could see perhaps a selector such as:

::current-line {background-color: red; color:black}

to emphasize the line of text that is currently being spoken,

or:

.song::current-word {text-decoration: bouncing-ball}

to put a bouncing ball over the currently spoken word.

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 22:49:40 UTC