Subject: RE: draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-06.txt

From: "Trevor Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:03:59 -0800

Denis,
I don't think the staffing policy at Microsoft is at question here.
Unlike many organisations we do have a dedicated staff of people solely
focused on accessibility defining requirements. The audio content is a
serious requires and I don't see any useful purpose in splitting it from
this ID. It is an option I the draft so does not impede any
implementation not interested in this aspect.

Trevor
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Pinkas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 5:45 AM
To: Housley, Russ
Cc: Dean Povey; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-06.txt

Russ,

> Denis:

>>> I agree that jingles are somewhat different than Logos.

>> OK. Since you agree it is different, let us make two documents (and 
>> hence let us define two extensions), one for visual logos, and
another 
>> one jingles.
> 
> 
> They are not that different!  Breaking them into separate documents 
> would defeat the alternate presentation to the blind.

If, as you mention, it is an *alternate* presentation, then since blind 
people do not need to see logos, there would be no problem to break the 
specification into two pieces: one for logos, one for jingles.

If, as you do not mention, it is supplementary information, hence not
for 
blind people but for fun, then you breaking it into two pieces would be
more 
difficult, but could still be done.

>> For the second one, it would make sense to query some blind people to

>> make sure that this would be really useful for them. We should hold
on 
>> the progression of the second document until we have verified this.
> 
> We have consulted with the people at Microsoft that write the 
> requirements for the "accessability" aspects of software.  These are
the 
> people that are responsible for making software that can be used by 
> disabled people.

Nancy questioned:

"Have any blind or otherwise visually-impaired users been consulted on
this 
issue, or weighed-in on the discussion in this forum?  If so, what has
their 
general opinion been?"

People at Microsoft are not *users*, nor are they all blind or otherwise

visually-impaired.

Additionally, the specification does not address internationalisations 
issues, which is not a problem with (visual) logos, but it is with
jingles.

The Oxford dictionary provides the following definition for logo:

logo / noun (pl. -os) a printed design or symbol that a company or an 
organization uses as its special sign.

Logos are only visual. Please deal with jingles separately.

The Oxford dictionary provides the following definition for jingle:

"a short song or tune that is easy to remember and is used in
advertising on radio or television".

Denis

> Russ

Now, if I had a certificate, it could well include the folling *two* 
following *community* logos. It would be up to your application, to
display 
none of them, one of them or both of them.