Re: @role in SVG

Doug,

I seem to be losing the battle of changing the subject to reflect the  
content....

I don't have a simple definition of "naive users" that will be useful  
in all circumstances.
developers and 'interested parties' are known to have their own  
agenda, one that might purport to be for the benefit of other groups  
who are not represented.

To that extent it may be necessary to identify naive users as those  
persons not represented.

as you say: end-users, casual developers, people using an authoring  
tool, and people with various disabilities are all very different  
audiences, who deserve individual consideration.

relatively few people are 'developers' and their representation is  
out of all proportion, this cannot but jeopardise and prejudice  
likely outcomes, to the detriment of all concerned.

regards

Jonathan Chetwynd
Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet



On 10 Oct 2007, at 14:06, Doug Schepers wrote:


Hi, Jonathan-

Please define "naive users".  As I said, if you wish to represent a  
constituency, you will have to stop using such vague terms, or we  
cannot begin to answer your questions.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Staff Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI

~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote (on 10/10/2007 2:24 AM):
> as I previously mentioned it appears that there has been no  
> response from any naive users.
> It's my opinion, already expressed that this change has not been  
> presented in a means presentable to such an audience.
> I am for instance not able to ask non-expert audiences for their  
> opinion to feed back into discussions.
> I do not consider it sufficient that the WG is excited by this  
> possibility.
> Rather than imagining the pros and cons.
> Please take the opportunity to ask.
> regards
> Jonathan Chetwynd
> Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet