W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2000

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

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <jay@peepo.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:13:13 -0000
Message-ID: <006c01bf658a$79432900$41419fd4@signbrowser>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@netcom.com>
Cc: <nir@nirdagan.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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.


Jonathan Chetwynd
Special needs teacher / web accessibility consultant
education and outreach working group member, web accessibility initiative,
----- 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
>   > at some point of how to mark navigation bars exactly for the purpose
>   > 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
>   > for acheiving it. Returning different documents based on the request
>   > variables
>   > has its virtues, but is very demanding from the content provider. Only
>   > 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
>   > >the guidelines/techniques do just that, e.g. recommending use of the
>   > >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
>   > the "how to do" stuff. These techniques may very well include XSLT
>   > By their nature the techniques are evolving over time while the axioms
>   > 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
>   > 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
>   > place.
>   >
>   > When WAI started alt was not a required attribute in <img> in HTML
>   > HTML3.2),
>   > so it was quite urgent to state that HTML pages without alt in <img>
>   > not accessible.
>   > Now by having a better HTML recommendation (HTML4.0), we achieve much
>   > on the alt front than a hundred techniques documents, simply because
>   > are hundereds of more people
>   > who validate their HTML pages without reading WAI documentation at
>   >
>   > Excuse me again for the rather simplistic example. It disregards the
>   > 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
>   > of XML
>   > applications/modules will be in the air. WAI should be alert to
>   > 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
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
> 21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia
Received on Sunday, 23 January 2000 05:21:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:31 UTC