W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamb@w3.org > June 2006

Re: Comments 465, 466, 545 - Wording of Success Criterion 4.2.1, 4.2.3

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:25:48 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920606281225i738570ecoce06ab3c4875dbf5@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: "Katie Haritos-Shea" <kharitos-shea@cri-solutions.com>, ryladog@earthlink.net, public-wcag-teamb@w3.org

Hi Gregg,

> I agree with the discoverability part -- except if this became a widely
> known convention.

I have reservations that it would become a widely known convention, as
I still think there are better ways of addressing the issue.

> > * Ensure visitors see the accessible version first, with a
> > link to the inaccessible version.
> If there is a link to the inaccessible version - then it has a URI and is a
> web unit itself.  So this SC has to be applied to it as well.  And then it
> fails.  (unless the site isn't required to be accessible in which case you
> can just omit the page from conformance claim to start with)

I didn't realise that. I thought only the resources that were omitted
from the conformance claim could be inaccessible. I didn't realise
that it meant content that linked to inaccessible content would also
have to be omitted from the conformance claim. Presumably, content
that linked to the resource that linked to the inaccessible content
would also fail? And site searches would have to ensure that
inaccessible content didn't show up in the results, or there would be
no way of ensuring a conformance claim?

> Also - I could have Googled into this inaccessible page - so I would have no
> way of finding the accessible page.

Cookies or session variables could be used, and if there isn't an
explicit opt-in for the accessible version, the user could be
redirected to the accessible version. That would also take care of
cookies/session cookies not being accepted, as visitors would only
receive the accessible content.

> > * Style sheet switching (for technologies that support style
> > sheet switching).
> Changing the HTML ending is 1000% easier than style sheet switching I'm
> afraid.

Browsers that support style sheet switching use shortcut keys. It's
far simpler to use the shortcut keys than trying to edit a URL in the
address bar. For example, on my website, Alt+V Alt+Y, and a down arrow
gets an alternate style sheet in Mozilla/Firefox (different keystrokes
in other browsers, but just as simple). Obviously, that could be made
even quicker using an access key. The equivalent for the address bar
is F6, deselecting current URL, moving to the end of the URL (could be
done in conjunction with the deselect), deleting the current extension
and replacing it with ".html". I don't think that's a 1000% easier
than switching style sheets - I think it's more difficult.

> > * User preferences (temporary measure until content negotiation is
> > possible) - provide an area for people to set their
> > preferences on the website, and then deliver the content
> > according to those preferences.
> Doesn't meet the SC.   From the inaccessible page (if I got there from
> GOOGLE) I have no way of finding the place on the website to turn on this
> feature.

The suggestion of redirecting unless the page has been opted into
could be used again.

> See the problem?

Yes, I do see the problem with my previous suggestions. Do you think
there's mileage in using preferences, and if none have been set
ensuring that the accessible version of the content is presented to
the user?

Best regards.


Supplement your vitamins
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2006 19:25:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:24 UTC