W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2000

Re: Discussion of 11.4

From: Brian Matheny <ws3f@norfolk-county.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:28:28 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
At 02:06 PM 01/24/2000 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org> wrote:
>3. What action do we take if we identify/verify that an alternative page 
>exists?  Do we suggest that they eliminate it since we prefer they try to 
>make a single accessible page?  Do we analyze it to make sure it is 
>equivalent?    Some feel it is a red flag indicating a "cop-out" in some 
>sense. Depending on the situation, an alternative page (or set of 
>alternative pages) is reasonable.  The unfortunate example is when a 

We have been contacted recently by a couple of people on their plans to
automatically generate text-only pages as alternative pages.  This approach
seems reasonable assuming their page generator does provide an equivalent,
of course.  It may be a 'cop-out' since they give the impression the
text-only pages will be generated whether or not needed.  The technique is
understandable given the usual budget and time pressures.  It also nullifies
the argument about text-only pages staying current.

One question they had was when one enters a text-only page, should the links
continue within the set of text-only pages or keep returning to the
graphical pages requiring 'rediscovery' of text-only links.  They commented
that the answer is not obvious since their blind, Jaws using employee
prefers the second choice with the text-only page popping-up along with the
graphical page so sighted users with them can examine the graphical page at
the same time.  Is this and other arguments compelling enough to continue to
discourage auto-generated text-only pages?

-Brian  32,000+ EV miles since 5/97!  Renewable energy charging, soon!
Received on Monday, 24 January 2000 15:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:29 UTC