Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:20:21 +0100 |
Cheap shot Hakon. I've talked at length in other posts about other presentational objects. If you want the issue reinterated, my stance is thus. You have less chance than a snowball at a BBQ in hell of interpreting auraly a graphicaly orientated site. If aural inference of large number of websites is a mess, it is not useful and will simply not be used. If we define aural presentation objects that can be used along side or in place of FOs, then thay can usefuly convey a message to listeners and will be used. Aural and visual presentations are very very different. The needs of both are different, and I see *no* good arguement for mixing the two. As a Web designer I have been experimenting with aural presentation, and have been pushing my product manager to include aural presentation, and voice regognition into a large intranet app (I have recently had the go ahead), I have absolutely no intention of muddling aural and visual presentation code together, the result would be a mess. What we need is the ability to faciliate... <aural:sentence> Hi. Presented here is an image of a sunsetting over a forest canopy as viewed from above. A flcok of elegent birds cross the suns face, and we see a river with the suns bronze refelction winding through the forrest. </aural:sentence> <aural:sentence> Your navigation options ar as follows, please state clearly the option you require. </aural:sentence> <aural:group> <aural:sentence> Front Page </aural:sentence> ...and so on... </aural:group> <aural:sentence> If you reuire explanation of an option please say <aural:stress>HELP</aural:stress> followed by the option. If you wish to hear the options again please say <aural:stress>REPEAT OPTIONS</aural:stress> </aural:sentence> ...Now I'm not making any arguement over the best aural semantics to use (the above are off the top of my head, and pretty awful), what I am suggestion is with XSL and presentation objects we can start to adress these issues in ways that simply aren't open to us with HTML. What if we are using vector graphics for out Web site? With aural POs we can address this issue, with aural inference from HTML we are hopelessly lost. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 04/25/99 10:51:39 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful Guy_Murphy wrote: > If the semantics used are not free, then using FOs gives a company a safe > wall here, a semantic firewall if you like. "semantic firewall" is a useful term. > In many cases, it simply will not be relevent. And the end user will not > care. All they will care about is what's infront of their eyes. Your last sentence nicely outlines why XFO will become a problem for non-visual users. -h&kon H?kon Wium Lie http://www.operasoftware.com/people/howcome howcome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx simply a better browser XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Guy_Murphy | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Stephen Deach |
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Guy_Murphy | Date | Re: character references in match p, James Clark |
Month |