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

RE: A single URI

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:04:52 -0500
Message-Id: <200112190352.WAA2493280@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
At 09:50 PM 2001-12-18 , Cynthia Shelly wrote:
>Not a consensus, just my opinion....
>One way would be to detect that the user can't accept cookies (not
>hard), and in that case send a page that links to all the different
>renderings.  The user could then click the appropriate link and see the
>one they want.  


The last time this came around was at


[The fact that it came back suggests we need something more in the appendix: a
note and/or a link to this discussion, anyhow more than a parenthetical

Note that the site could serve the page with hyperlinks as the first page,
without sensing noCookies first, and still be in compliance.  "Through the
URI" does not mean "as transparent alternative realizations of one and the
self-same URI-named resource."  It just means that by starting at the 'one
you can get there accessibly and expeditiously, although the way to get there
may include following hyperlinks.  

Or at least that interpretation passed by without opposing argument the last
time.  There was no official record of consensus about this as clarifying the
'consensus item' so far as I know.

PF went on to advise the Device Independence Working Group that


- Hyperlinking is an acceptable means of relating alternative options.
Coverage of user requirements may be by the envelope of the capabilities of
the alternatives in this case.  [...]


Having the user chose among user-visible options is a more stable method of
controlling server-side options than asking the user to make more abstract
choices by indicating 'preferences'.  See the Telecomm strategies for reducing
cognitive barriers, quoted at


Parallel sites still have to overcome mistrust based on past bad performance. 
The /access option at Amazon does not appear to be full-function.  I tried to
use it for my Christmas shopping and gave up and went back to the main site.  

But the people at Tesco would seem to have done it right.  At least they have
the support of RNIB for what they did. 

It's not so much a paradigm shift as an explicit nod to the long-standing
notion of equivalent facilitation, and the growing server-side capacity to
deliver the same.  [But it had better be good.]


>Another would be store the user preference on the server, and have the
>user log in to access it.
>In both cases, the preference could be passed from page to page on the
>site in a query string, so the user would only have to do this once per
>session.  For users who do support cookies, this setting can be saved so
>they only have to do it once per machine.  
>Once CC/PP is more widely supported, the user preferences could also be
>stored in a CC/PP profile on the client, which could be sent to the
>server and used to configure the page.  I don't think this is feasible
>right now, but some day...
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott Luebking
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 5:48 PM
>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: A single URI
>I posted this message to CHI-WEB.  A question that came back was how
>will the web site technology handle a single URI for multiple versions
>of a web page if the user doesn't allow cookies or has reached a limit
>on cookies.  Did the GL committee come up with technology solutions
>for this situation?
>The guidelines group for the Web Access Initiative (WAI) of the World
>Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is considering a new consensus item on web
>     S1 - serving content in different forms is an acceptable way to
>     with the guidelines as long as equivalents for all of the
>     are provided in the different forms and it is all available through
>     same URI (though it may be linked to it) (server side solutions are
>     acceptable - as specified)
>This is a paradigm shift from the current paradigm of having a
>"one size fits all" approach towards web page accessibility
>where there's a single version of a web page rather than multiple
>versions as the new consensus item would provide.
>I was wondering what people thought of this change in approach towards
>web page accessibility.
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2001 22:53:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC