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

RE: Multiple versions of a web page

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 19:39:20 -0500 (EST)
To: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>
cc: <cyns@microsoft.com>, <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112311931500.25418-100000@tux.w3.org>
Actually I don't think there is going to be a universal solution where there
are 3, or 4, or two versions of a page that collectively p[roviide full
accessibility.

Different kinds of content will be most easily made accessible  by allowing
access in different ways - in some cases by providing a single page that
supports a high degree of re-rendering, in others by providing several
specialised renderings with linkage between them.

A "Generic" version as one among many is always a good option, because it is
actually quite difficult to ensure that all different needs have been met.

In addition, if there is an underlying source that is processed, it is often
a good idea to provide access to that as well (for example, I can use a
database to collect content, and build navigation paths through it on the
fly, but it is helpful to have a simple way to get at all the content - for
example to enable search engines to point to something in the database.

A more accessibility-related use case is to enable someone to build a new
optimised interface to that data, similar to the ability some portals have to
allow for (usually very limited) customisation.

Accordingh to research done on customising portals at Monash University (I
read a paper that I can't find - I think it was by Dey Alexander) if I recall
correctly only a few percent actually customise the portal, but they
appreciate greatly the ability to do so. If that few percent happens to be a
group of people with disabilities, it is just as well to have enabled it.

Cheers

Charles

On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Scott Luebking wrote:

  Hi, Kynn

  I'm really not sure what to do about cognitive disabilities,
  especially because the needs of one cognitivie disability
  can be in conflict with the needs of another cognitive disability,
  e.g. more images versus more text.

  I was thinking that a "no frills version" might be somewhat universal
  because it could be used by blind people if an appropriate format is developed,
  by people with older computers and browsers and by people who have low
  band width.  However, it doesn't really address people with other needs,
  e.g. small screen real estate.

  Another word which was suggested was "generic", which is probably slightly
  better, but might still imply more diversity than is really provided.

  Any ideas?

  Scott

  > At 11:17 AM -0800 12/21/01, Scott Luebking wrote:
  > >If the first is called the 'universal' format (I'm still looking for
  > >another name), it would be just a matter of having the 'universal'
  > tree, e.g.  www.zzz.com/universal
  >
  > I agree it needs a different name -- if just for the reason that it's
  > absurd to suggest that a page which meets the needs for a blind user
  > is necessarily going to be the best format for meeting the needs of
  > a user with cognitive disabilities.
  >
  > --Kynn


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 31 December 2001 19:39:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:17 GMT