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

Re: A proposal for changing the guidelines

From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:23:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200003132023.MAA25654@netcom.com>
To: phoenixl@netcom.com, robneff@home.com
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi, Rob

I may not have been clear in what I was proposing.  Basically,
if a web site is interested in supporting multiple formats,
I think the guidelines need to be structured to take advantage
of that choice in order to improve the usability and accessibility
of the web pages.  If the site is not going to support multiple
formats, I don't think the guidelines should force them into that.

I very much agree that the guidelines should be written with both
the disabled person and the developer in mind.  Both groups have to
live with the guidelines.

I believe that while many disabled people have climbed on the Universal
Design bandwagon, there needs to be more research about the limits
of Universal Design.  For example, does the concept of Universal Design
allow for multiple formats or not?  There seems to be different
opinions on this.  I think it is important to remember that the
end goal is not Universal Design but rather accessibility.  Universal
Design is only a means to an end, but it is not necessarily the only
means.

Scott

> while i agree with scott, we cannot dictate the technical approach as long
> as the user is covered.  with personalization and content management, you
> could visit a site and select all content be delivered to you in a
> particular format.  Universal Design is a good concept, but hi-end marketing
> requires personalization and your ad revenue and catalog sales are what keep
> you a float.  Therefore, I can use a database to push the content that you
> desire.  Many sights already do this and you may or may not be aware.  A
> most excellent tool is Vignette Story server.  The objective is to turn hits
> into revenue and database driven web sites support this.  they also support
> ease of use with content maangement tools.  Remember, the commercial market
> and print newspapers and magazines are going to be the toughest to convince.
> 
> i also must caution the use of database driven web sites if they are going
> to see a lot of useage.  this is an operations issue and would hope that the
> operation folks are up to speed on caching and scalability and running a
> hi-end site.  Depending on the operating system, middleware and dataabse, a
> methodology could be used to generate the page and cache it so it does not
> get hit.
> 
> One thing that bothers me with validators, bobby and other tools is they
> always tell you when you need <noScript>, but they do not take into account
> if the user has turned javascript off on the client side then the server
> side validation kicks in and the information is processed.
> 
> there is so much testing to be done to rally quantufy how each tool and
> browser work with agents.  all this in the time to market that uses internet
> time.
> 
> i do not think the WCAG guidelines have deifned their target audience.  Is
> it PWD or developers - it should be both!  They have a simbiotic
> relationship, yet each have different subgroups.  Hence different
> requriements and needs.  Universal Design is supposed to be a cure all, but
> when?  three years?  thisnk we need to putn the marketing caps on and use
> the soft sale appraoch...hook the developers with a nibbel and then when
> authpring tools are on board, then use the net!
> 
> see y'all next monday in los angelos.
> 
> rob
Received on Monday, 13 March 2000 15:27:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT