W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2001

Re: Equivalent Sites: What It Means

From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:35:18 -0500
Message-Id: <4.1.20010125163003.04698340@127.0.0.1>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Also one important thing to me has been that the information used by
alternative views to a site gets updated at the same time with the same
process so that there is no danger of  one alternative lagging behind and
the other alternative becoming the 'main' one.

Marja

At 10:55 PM 1/22/01 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>
>  Here's a start.
>
>  Two interfaces are equivalent if:
>
>  (1) The same functionality is available in each interface.
>
>  (2) The same content is conveyed through each interface.
>
>CMN I agree that both these things are necessary.
>
>  (3) The same meta-content -- if not interface-dependent -- is conveyed
>       though each interface.
>
>CMN I'm not sure if I understand this one - can you explain a bit more?
>
>  (4) The branding/identity components of each interface are
>       as similar as possible given the limitations of each
>       interface type.
>
>CMN Yes, I think it is important that Branding and Identity components
>identify two interfaces as being equivalents. I think it is important to have
>"metadata" identifying the two as equivalents, although that may be a
>technique for doing this.
>
>KB
>  Additionally, each interface should be constructed so as to maximize
>  the usability of that specific interface by the possible user
>  types.  (For example, if a screenreader presentation is created,
>  the interface should be optimized for screenreader use.)
>
>CMN I think this is more a principle of good design than part of a
>definition of equivalence - don't lose it, but it might not belong in the
>definition itself.
>
>Another principle, I think, is that it should be possible to move from one
>interface to another - perhaps by use of the metadata that sayss where there
>are equivalent interfaces. For example, You may have optimised your interface
>to use with a screenreader, but I learned touse a screenreader as though it
>were a different kind of interface, and would much rather actually work with
>your cell-phone-enhanced interface, or something like that. I don't know if
>this is an overriding requirement for accessibility, but it is something that
>is definitely important. Not least becuase you are unlikely to have developed
>your system for the quirks of every different screenreader solution
>available. (Actually, at the moment I use a system where I select text line
>by line to get it read, and do wierd things to find out where I am. It isn't
>the most efficient, but it works on the Macintosh and it's free...)
>
>cheers
>
>Charles McCN
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 16:32:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:38 GMT