Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> We've had HTML for how many years now? And we have also had text to speak
> for a good number of years also. Anybody seen during this time a rush by
> the Web community to support aural presentation of Web pages?

As far as I know, aural presentation of Web pages works *today*.

> At a simple level, HTML is so loose, unclear and unspecific (I was tempted
> to simply say crap) that there are 100000000 and 1 mish-mashed pages
> pulling all sorts of dirty tricks to render they're page. Think that H2
> tags should be delivered in a certian way? It would require the dangerous
> assumption that authors use H2 tags correctly.

HTML *allows* you to do things properly and also makes that relatively
easy to do. For instance MSWord 2000 outputs H1s, H2s, etc. for headings.
So does DreamWeaver. I don't know a lot about other tools.

Formatting objects *have no concept* of an H1 and an H2 so they don't even
give users the option of doing things in an accessible manner -- unless
they make a whole 'nother aural stylesheet (which we know they are not
likely to do).

> Hakon then talks about being able to carry over data semantics into
> presentation using DIV classes.... just HOW are you going to interpret that
> auraly.

You don't. But then no major tools I know of generate just SPANs and DIVs.
You could point to a tool that did and say: "that tool is broken." But a
tool that used the same FO tag for paragraphs and headings would be *doing
the right thing*. That's a problem.

> The best way to specify aural presentation is.... ummm to specify it *not*
> infer it.

In a world of unlimited resources, maybe. In this world, not a chance. How
much do you know about the proper aural specification for sight impaired
people? How much research have you done? I know what I know: "use good,
semantic HTML and let the software handle it."

That's pretty much the jist of what the experts say also:

http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/

Of their 14 guidelines not a single one says: "Go out of your way to use
special technologies designed for impaired viewers." Most of them say,
rather: "use the technologies that you would ordinarily use, but use them
carefully and properly." "alt" text is the only counterexample and we know
how wildly popular THAT has been.

> [I truly find it hard to credit that we're going over HTML again at this
> stage of the game]

We don't need to go back to HTML if the formatting objects are made
accessible.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"The Excursion [Sport Utility Vehicle] is so large that it will come
equipped with adjustable pedals to fit smaller drivers and sensor 
devices that warn the driver when he or she is about to back into a
Toyota or some other object." -- Dallas Morning News


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