- From: Jim Ley <jim@e-media.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:23:01 -0000
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Cc: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> And the other approach, as Lisa pointed out (beating Kynn to the jump - hi > Kynn <grin/>) is to serve different versions of the content for different > users (It isn't just Reef doing this - big names include IBM, smaller ones > include adaptive media, and most people who started marketing to mobile > devices). This introduces complexity, you need some way to manage the choice of the users, whilst I acknowledge there's a CC/PP proposal, we have no implementations (and I hope we never do, it goes against my own views on accessibility) so you have to provide a user interface, this interface is likely be its very nature to be confusing and complicated for a user to relearn on each site they may visit, and that's where the site designer is happy to compromise their basic interface/design of what the site's actual content is about to provide these additional options. For things like animation, the solution surely has to rest with the user in the UserAgent, I can't see how any recommendation could credibly suggest that it be done on a page by page basis. > The benefit of the first appraoch is that it is very simple for authors, but > users have to do more configuration, and therefore need to know they can, and > how. Indeed, but it solves for every site, and not just the one where the author understands the principles of accessibilty and is willing to make consideration. There's always the opportunity for a page designer who is interested in doing this to provide details of how a particular UA could be used to change the feature. Jim.
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 09:28:47 UTC