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

RE: A proposal for changing the guidelines

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:07:58 -0600
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <000701bf8c6f$6d74e8a0$bcb6d818@vander>

I think there is a very important difference between dynamically generated
and hand generated alternate pages.

I the discussions the number one complaint or downside of alternate pages
was that they did not always contain the same information because they were
not updated.   With dynamically updated pages - this problem does not exist.

Once that problem is out of the way - we then run into a trade off situation

Do I want to page that is laid out and presented in a form that is easier
and faster for me to use with text only browsers?


Do I want to have the same page as graphics people have so that I can
converse with them about the page if I want to --- and so that I don't have
to worry about someone deciding that there is some information on the
graphics page that is left off of the alternative page presentation.

I hear people who are blind arguing both sides..


I have come to the conclusion that neither approach is the correct silver
bullet.  In order to generate a truly complete alternate page - you would
have to have all of the information that you would need for an accessible
graphics page, stored in the database.     The proper approach would
therefore seem to be, that one could ask for the server to send you either
the accessible graphics page, OR an alternative layout page.   The user
however should be the one to choose, not a browser sniffer or automatic
technique that guesses what I prefer.    (Actually, it might not be too bad
if it sniffed and guessed but left me the option to choose.  Better though
that it check to see my default preference - and then still let me change my
mind for a site)

I think I would usually choose the alternate form if I weren't on a graphics
browser with high speed connection.  But that is just my guess as to what I
would like.

I do think that people who tried using voice browsing with pages designed
for graphics and with pages designed for voice (non-visual) browsing would
prefer the one designed for the mode of access they were using.    And I
think this will be even more true as the pages get crazier.

The bug-a-boo I see is ensuring that the alternative form created by the
server does indeed have all the information.    I wonder if we could
generate a set of rules that would do that.   I THINK (but I don't know)
that the current WCAG does that.   We just need an application note (or a
techniques doc section or supplement) that would make it clear exactly how
to do that.   Once that was done - it would be interesting to see if it
would indicate that the language in the WCAG itself would need change (or
not) to tune it for this usage.

Comments anyone?


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]  On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile

I do not agree that there is any demonstrable difference for a user, whether
the page was generated dynaimcally or hand-created by manually resetting
of memory. I therefore think this is an inappropriate split.
Received on Sunday, 12 March 2000 17:11:16 UTC

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