W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Content negotiation

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:18:01 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010423201801.007e1360@pop.erols.com>
To: Adam Victor Reed <areed2@calstatela.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Adam,

	I understand Jonathon's frustrations.

	Your solution shows promise, but it's a long way from being a reality.
Justice postponed is justice denied?

	I, also, do not understand the nature of the objections. Redundency was OK
until the CD folks asked for a summary. Multi-media is evil because eight
web designers somewhere did what their co-worker asked them to do...
Jonathon has more than eight students to study and share with us. His
students are striving to learn to use the web. He tells us what he observes
of how these students use, and want to use the web. 

	How soon could your suggestion become a reality, and what do we do for
these folks in the meantime?

				Anne

PS: Please share what componants should be included in the illustration for
the ideal page?



	

At 04:05 PM 4/23/01 -0700, Adam Victor Reed wrote:
>I am sad to see the following on this list (addressed to a list member
>who was making a relevant technical point):
>> 
>> If you don't have time or inclination to contribute positively, for
goodness sake get out of the way.
>> 
>
>I believe the concern, that sites attempting to accomodate one
>disability might gratuitously disable users with other disabilities,
>is valid in BOTH directions. Perhaps instead of squabbling, we might
>explore solutions. This could be an appropriate application for
>content-negotiation technology, which is already being used to secure
>appropriate content for different media, languages, character-sets etc.
>
>This would require the client-browser to send an HTTP header such as
>
>Accomodate: cd2
>
>(meaning "accomodate cognitively disabled persons functioning at 2nd
>grade level"); or
>
>Accomodate: add
>
>(meaning "accomodate attention deficits - no amination, no irrelevant
>or repetitious content"); or
>
>Accomodate: fmd
>
>(meaning "accomodate fine motor deficit") etc. This header would then
>be used on the server to find or produce the most appropriate version
>of the requested content.
>
>Most of the technology is already in place in current HTTP servers.
>Should it not be applied to accomodate disabilities, just as it is
>already being used to accomodate different character-sets etc.?
>
>-- 
>				Adam Reed
>				areed2@calstatela.edu
>				 
>Context matters. Seldom does *anything* have only one cause.
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 20:11:52 GMT

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