Re: Proposal: ARIA-ROLE & CSS definition integration

At 2:26 PM -0400 6/9/08, Al Gilman wrote:
>[radically reducing distribution; please feel free to copy to anyone who
>needs a copy]

[I put it back on the public lists as I think its important to try to 
converge on terminology.]

>
>On 9 Jun 2008, at 11:16 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>>At 1:03 AM -0400 6/9/08, Justin James wrote:
>>>James -
>>>
>>>>  I think you may have missed the point of my JavaScript example. It was
>>>>  just one way you could insert ARIA semantics into the DOM by flagging
>>>>  an HTML class or id, or for that matter, by any CSS selector. The
>>>>  example was not my recommendation for how it should always be done.
>>>
>>>Ah, gotcha, thanks!
>>>
>>>>  One thing you could do is to help ensure that all of the ARIA
>>>>  semantics get rolled into HTML 5.
>>>
>>>I fully support this, and I will be looking out for it. I think that ARIA is
>>>too important to be *not* rolled 100% into HTML. First, it eliminates many
>>>of my gripes with HTML as a presentation layer for application development
>>>(HTTP is still wholly inadequate for the task...), by finally (15 years too
>>>late) providing a mechanism for AT systems to "get" HTML. Secondly, it
>>>provides a way to get really darned close to the semantic Web ideal.
>>
>>As someone reading all this from the sidelines, this direction of 
>>discussion seems to me to have gone into left field.
>>
>>Can anyone briefly explain what is meant by "ARIA 
>><em>semantics</em>" (my emphasis),
>
>"This object has the focus," "this option is selected," etc.
>
>See, for example
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-primer/#new_provisions

OK, thanks. Just for the record, that isn't the way that the word is 
used in Semantic Web discussions.

>>what CSS has got to do with semantics (in any sense),
>
>Layman 'sense' of the symbol 'semantics':
>
><quote
>cite="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics">
>
>3 a: the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of 
>signs; especially : connotative meaning

That's sufficiently general and bland to apply to almost anything. 
But you don't mean semantics which supports a notion of inference 
which can be performed by a machine, right? And in any case, I 
wouldn't have said that text color was semantic even in this sense.

></quote>
>
>>and what either of these is likely to do for the semantic Web?
>
>Dunno.  "the semantic Web ideal" may refer to "making the web
>more semantic (i.e. a less error-prone representation of meaning)."

No, that's not what it means. See http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/. And 
that's not what 'semantic' means, either: 'more semantic' doesn't 
mean 'more precise'. Imprecise languages have semantics too.

>In that case, the beneficiary is the Web, not the Semantic Web.
>
>>Isnt CSS entirely about, well, graphic style?
>
>And what is the style about?  Connotative meaning, quite often.

I think not, most of the time, in fact: but certainly not in any 
sense of 'meaning' used in the context of talking about the SWeb.

>Web 0.1: this text is clickable, is a hyperlink.
>
>Web 2.0: this <div>is a drop-down menu, but currently
>collapsed.
>
>>I see nothing even slightly semantic in the question of whether 
>>some text items should be rendered in large red characters (say).
>
>Graphic artists and GUI designers have been violating that, with
>results that they like, to the point that it is standards operating practice.
>
>Given the frequency with which facts like "this form field requires
>an answer" or "the answer in this form field is invalid" is entrusted
>to presentation properties such as a red color, there is meaning in forms,
>that all users need, that is encoded in presentation properties in the
>GUI look and feel.

Meaning to human readers, maybe. But that's not what the SWeb is 
about. Also, I wonder how many of these graphic devices are anything 
close to being 'standard', in fact. I bet most GUI designers would 
rather resent being told what colors to use in order to conform to a 
W3C directive. (BTW, 'requires an answer' is most often encoded by an 
asterisk, in my experience.)

>>If this is semantics, then we must be talking about entirely 
>>different notions of "semantic Web".
>
>Different?  Probably yes.  Entirely?  That's a matter of 
>s/semantics/interpretation.

Well, actually its a matter of public record: the term "semantic web" 
was introduced by the W3C, after all, and they have a reasonably 
clear meaning for it.

>
>>What is your "semantic Web ideal" ?
>
>Here's mine:
>
>That the semiotics of the Web be more productive.  That the
>media used on the web encode more kinds of meaning that
>the speaker and hearer can beneficially share, in encodings/representations
>that are efficient for the speaker and effective (low misunderstanding
>rate) for the hearer.

Interesting, but nothing at all to do with the SWeb project/goals. 
You are still talking about human/human communication here. The SWeb 
goal is to perform work without human intervention or communication 
being necessary. Perhaps 'inference web' would have been a better 
term, but we are stuck with 'semantic web' now.

How about calling your goal the 'semiotic web'? (Half serious 
suggestion: it might catch on and be useful. The world needs both 
semiotics and semantics.)

-------

Thanks for the feedback, as it reveals a profound difference between 
usages of the S-word. We will all get very confused if we don't keep 
these differences in mind.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections