Patrick,
Thanks for your ideas. I'll be considering them more fully, but I did
want to respond with some initial thoughts/feelings:
>> Actually, I always saw paragraphs as one single thought or topic.
Once you go on to another thought, you're starting a new paragraph. Yes,
the name derives from the printed world ("graph" is the clue here), but
the more abstract concept is not bound to print or the visual world.
I agree in that paragraphs contain single thoughts/topics, but do you
think of someone speaking "in paragraphs?" I generally constrain that
to written word, but perhaps that is not accurate.
>> But all of that is irrelevant, IMHO, because the markup
unequivocally defines what is a paragraph, heading, etc. There's no
inferring of structure as in listening/transcribing speech. The
structure can be defined in the markup in a way that it can't be in
print (where you have to usual visual representations) or speech (where
you use pauses, inflections, etc).
Right (and, "sort of" - see below)! I'm saying the structure itself is
best-suited for (and derived from) a literary document, that in its very
nature a visual context is assumed (reading/looking). If this were not
the case, we wouldn't have to go to extra lengths to make pages
"accessible" for non-visual users. The fact that we have to add
parameters and extra data for non-visual users should show us that the
underlying framework is tailored to visual users. Tape a 30 second
conversation between a husband and a wife, and there are no "headers" or
"pages". It's a different ball game.
>> How do you explain the fact that blind users can quite happily
understand the structure of semantic XHTML documents? If it's so
inherently visual, they should be at a complete loss. However, *because*
the structure is agnostic in regards to how it's output (visually,
aurally, whatever), that's not the case.
That's easy: they need a tool to take what a browser would give them and
instead provide the information to them in a format more meaningful to
them. Unless you're willing to argue that a web browser is simply one
of many tools (instead of the primary and intended tool) for viewing
X/HTML information, this seems semi-obvious. If the structure was truly
agnostic and unbiased towards visual presentation, you'd have people
with perfect vision who would rather browse the web with a screen
reader. The idea that screen readers are for people who have hindered
vision seems to point to a bias towards the visual presentation of
X/HTML if available.
Accessibility, in my understanding (and I freely admit this could be a
flawed understanding) is all about providing access to people without
the ability to use a full-blown GUI, point-and-click web interface
(whether due to disabilities or equipment [PDAs]). Note that W3C
defines accessibility as meeting the needs of users who don't (negative)
have something that the typical desktop user has:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#Introduction (AListApart says
similar things: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/wiwa/).
Accessibility doesn't seem to be about giving users a choice of
interpretation as much as it is trying to give everyone the best
usability experience possible - it doesn't say those experiences are
equal or unbiased.
>> That's like saying "a speech, lecture or public reading has a
primary visual intent".
Ahh, but that's different. In those cases written language is serving
the spoken, acting as notes. That's why we practice speeches and public
readings. We want to communicate information that isn't in the written
form via inflection, pause, and volume emphasis.
All I'm getting at is that we seem to have changed our thinking about a
web that hasn't changed in nature, and it seems to be on the verge of
counter-productive. Sure, I want all people to be able to benefit from
the sites I build, but the idea that X/HTML lends itself to auditory
users as much as it lends itself to visual users I don't find very
convincing.
Let me know if you have any other thoughts! I've got to get to work. :-)
-Nate
*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Corporate Communications Designer
*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.com <http://www.solvepoint.com>
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
