- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:26:34 +1100 (EST)
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
As has been discussed before on this list, the guidelines already provide for "alternative versions" of documents as a last resort, where other access measures can not be implemented. This is an entirely reasonable approach. Moreover, the guidelines specify the requirements which need to met by any web content in order for it to be regarded as accessible, at three distinct levels. These requirements, it is clear, can be satisfied either by supplying a single version of a document or, where this is not possible, by multiple versions. To this extent, the requirements are goal-oriented rather than process-oriented: they prescribe what must be available to user agents, namely accessible web content, and are not concerned with how this is generated, whether by server-side manipulations or otherwise. Thus I do not support changing the guidelines in such a way as to accord priority to "alternative pages", as these are already permitted, in an appropriate context, specifically as a fall-back position, by the guidelines as they stand. The most that should be said regarding "alternative pages" is to offer relevant suggestions in the HTML techniques module under checkpoint 11.4.
Received on Friday, 10 March 2000 18:26:44 UTC