Re: about public browsers etc.

D. Owen Rowley ([email protected])
Tue, 16 May 1995 11:58:22 -0700


>I agree with the key points that access for blind users is necessary (and not
>necessarily too difficult), and this would be of benefit for all users. Text
>descriptions would have great utility ( whether presented visually,
auditory, or in
>Braille), however a text only browser is not a must, .

I think that there is real need for a glossary of terms and a clear
distinction between the functional aspects of VRML and The form.
For one thing *text descriptions* can be very easily misunderstood.
In actuality VRML is a text description of a scene.
But I understand that is not hat you mean above, To me you are talking about
*text renering*.

Anyway - as i understand it html3(?) plans to have a text to speach
capability, and as such would make a *text rendering* of a scene quite
usefull for anone who does not have the capability to observe a graphic
rendering - for whatever reason.

>Chris's idea of modifying the parser to output (like Gavin suggested) a
simple list
>of links and associated text descriptions is right in line with what we
have been
>thinking of. I would like to discuss the modified parser idea further.
This would
>quickly provide functional access. Additionally, if the underutilized
"Info" and the
>new "ASCIIText" nodes could be fed into this list. All of this would serve
in the
>same way that HTML "ALT" does.

Sounds like there is an immediate need for an organisational *map* of links.

>
>Looking towards 1.1, the introduction of sound will cause a similar
problem. If
>world designers include information in some audio format, it will again be
>necessary to have a text description. Not only would this be of benefit
for persons
>with hearing impairments, but it would be necessary for people using VRML in
>situations such as libraries or noisy environments.

Streaming sound is quite a different beast than the sort of sound we are used to
in these primitive times of the internet. It is old hat to the TV and phone
industrys.
TV handles this with alternate audio channels, phone companys supply
alternate devices for hearing impaired.

> So, would it be cleaner for the
>spec to have separate text descriptions for visual, auditory, and
eventually haptic
>elements of a given VRML world. Or, would it be best to have one general
textual
>description (with some indication of which modality this text is a
substitution of)
>node, or complementary file type, for all text descriptions?

a canoncal text basis for sound means NO real time capability until we have the
ability to write AI code to transcribe it. I for one think this is not what
we want.

LUX ./. owen
D. Owen Rowley [email protected] http://net.org/~owen
President: The Community Company LTD. http://net.org/~tcc
Communication and Commerce United - Real World performance
"I liked the company so much, I had the logo tattooed on my arm."