RE: FOs and moving on

[DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Marcus wrote:
>Making a braille screen reader compatible with a single FO 
>browser would still be a lot less hassle than having
>to deal with the seperate applications for each of the 
>formatting-oriented file types that have emerged already.

DaveP.

Yes it is an option, but second best IMVHO.


In an attempt to move on from the problem domain,
and towards a solutions option set,
could I ask members of the group to propose something
that the WG could consider in terms of addressing this
inaccessibility issue?

If we accept the fo as a solution for the print medium,

How to improve the accessibility of fo's? 
Are there any alternatives which deliver the same
as fo's for print, but provide access for other media, not simply
print?
Is it possible to maintain the semantics of the source
document whilst 'moving towards' the print domain?
How viable is an ICADD attribute?

IMHO, any solution which provides accessibility must
be a part of the core process rather than an additional 
workload on the author, or it will be treated as alt text,
OK for those prepared to expend further effort, but
not mainstream.

I feel that the WG would be happier if suggestions
were made for consideration, rather than just 
complaining about the present inaccessibility issues.

Could we improve on the fo solution between us?
I'm sure the WG are willing to listen, and the subscribers
to this list are surely best placed to propose options.


regards, DaveP


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list