Re: Does the user know for sure whether the page is dynamic or static?

My concern is that urls should be simple and that the content should be
reproducable as well as easy to understand.
(please do not comment on mine, it's a known disability.)

If a 'blind' person was discussing a page with a sighted one, it seems that
one is possibly creating an area of confusion. If the pages are generated
dynamically this could be unacceptable.

eg: about one year ago I was considering buying an Apple notebook and the UK
prices quoted online were 50% of market value.
Unfortunately(?) they refused to honour these.


jay@peepo.com

Jonathan Chetwynd
Special needs teacher / web accessibility consultant
education and outreach working group member, web accessibility initiative,
W3C
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
To: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
Cc: <nir@nirdagan.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: XML and accessibility


> A simple question can resolve whether there are different needs for
> dynamically generated pages And statically generated ones:
>
> Does the user know for sure whether the page is dynamic or static?
>
> If the user cannot tell whether there is a difference then there is no
> different user need. In cases where t information is being updated as the
> user is reading it, such as a stock-market ticker that is running, or some
> scrolling text, then there are rrequirements that the user can pause the
> motion.
>
> Charles McCN
>
>
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Scott Luebking wrote:
>
>   Hi, Nir
>
>   The reason I said that the suggestion about extending XHTML is
>   simplistic is that there needs to be more research into what problems
>   blind people have using web pages.  The issue of navigation bars is
>   actually a specific example of a more general problem that blind people
>   have in navigating through web pages.  In general, blind people will
>   work more efficiently when web pages are organized along lines of the
>   importance of semantic information.  In the case of navigation bars,
>   navigation bars are of less semantic importance and it would be better
>   to put them after the more important information of the dynamically
>   generated web page.
>
>   Please remember that the discussion is about dynamically generated web
>   pages.  This almost automatically implies that some level of programming
>   is involved.
>
>
>   Since there has been little discussion on what is needed for web pages
>   designed for blind users, it is not very easy to conclude how much
>   effort is needed in developing them.  Also, having a separate web page
>   for blind users might simplify development of web pages for sighted
>   users.  So, it might be that a larger, complex problem of developing
>   dynamically generated web pages for both blind and sighted user could be
>   replaced by two smaller, simpler problems.
>
>
>   I would agree that the guidelines should stick to principles or axioms.
>   The question to be resolved is whether there is the same of set of
>   axioms for stored pages as there is for dynamically generated web pages.
>   This cannot be answered until there is better understanding about what
>   is needed in web pages dynamically generated for blind users in order
>   that they can can be both efficient and accurate when using the web
>   pages.
>
>
>   In terms of dynamic web pages for blind users, it is irrelevant whether
>   the HTML was generated from XML, databases or any other data source.
>   The more important aspect is that the resulting HTML has the appropriate
>   information and structure needed by blind people using the dynamically
>   generated web pages in order to be efficient and accurate when using the
>   web pages.
>
>
>   Scott
>
>
>   > At 02:45 PM 1/22/00 -0800, Scott Luebking wrote:
>   >
>   > >I'm sorry to say, but your suggestion of extending XHTML for webbish
>   > >constructs is rather simplistic.
>   >
>   > Yes of course. But I would like to recall that there was a big
discussion
>   > at some point of how to mark navigation bars exactly for the purpose
of
>   > allowing moving them around by the user agent.
>   >
>   > Simplicity is a virtue, not a drawback. If one wants that a wide
>   > public of content providers will create accessible websites,
>   > one should create simple rules, from the content provider's point of
view,
>   > for acheiving it. Returning different documents based on the request
>   > variables
>   > has its virtues, but is very demanding from the content provider. Only
very
>   > large
>   > websites that hire professional programmers can afford that.
>   > Eventually every kid and every housewife will have a website, and we
want all
>   > of these websites to be accessible.
>   >
>   > >
>   > >I don't quite understand your comment on it being preferable that WAI
>   > >not create guidelines for using given specifications.  It would seem
that
>   > >the guidelines/techniques do just that, e.g. recommending use of the
LABEL
>   > >tag, not using TABLE for layout, etc.
>   >
>   > I think that the Content guidelines should stick to principles or
axioms of
>   > accessible design. And that there should be a set of techniques that
gives
>   > the "how to do" stuff. These techniques may very well include XSLT
stuff.
>   > By their nature the techniques are evolving over time while the axioms
stay
>   > fixed.
>   > This is very much how the guidelines are organized now.
>   >
>   > This is also very good for WAI's work directly. It can evaluate other
>   > W3C proposals against the "WAI axioms".
>   >
>   > I didn't say WAI shouldn't give these techniques. I said that it
shouldn't
>   > be the major and only effort of WAI. The main effort should be in
getting the
>   > other W3C recommendations to take into account accessiblity in the
first
>   > place.
>   >
>   > When WAI started alt was not a required attribute in <img> in HTML
(then
>   > HTML3.2),
>   > so it was quite urgent to state that HTML pages without alt in <img>
are
>   > not accessible.
>   > Now by having a better HTML recommendation (HTML4.0), we achieve much
more
>   > on the alt front than a hundred techniques documents, simply because
there
>   > are hundereds of more people
>   > who validate their HTML pages without reading WAI documentation at
all.
>   >
>   > Excuse me again for the rather simplistic example. It disregards the
fact
>   > that writing
>   > the alt text well is also very important; but I hope it is
illustrative still.
>   >
>   > I think we are standing in a begining of a period where lots of
proposals
>   > of XML
>   > applications/modules will be in the air. WAI should be alert to
influence
>   > those in time.
>   >
>   > Regards,
>   > Nir.
>   >
>   > ===================================
>   > Nir Dagan
>   > Assistant Professor of Economics
>   > Brown University
>   > Providence, RI
>   > USA
>
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134
136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI
> 21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia
>
>

Received on Sunday, 23 January 2000 05:21:38 UTC