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

Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))

From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:30:26 -0800
Message-Id: <200201010430.g014UQf8022055@newbolt.sonic.net>
To: charles@w3.org, phoenixl@sonic.net
Cc: kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

There seems to be two basic strategies for accessing different versions
of a web page.  One strategey has a way to track a user's preference by
using cookies or including session information in the URL.  The other
strategy is to provide parallel tree structures.  I think that both are
reasonable depending of the development resources possible.  For some
places where the availability of programmers to hadle cookies or
rewriting URL's is very limited, the parallel tree approach might be
reasonable.  It can also be useful for users who refuse cookies.  For
other sites where there is more programming resources available, using
cookies or rewriting URL's might be fine.

If the parallel tree approach is used, peoviding links to versions od
the page in other trees would be desirable.


> I think that what yu have suggested is merely a longer (and therefore more
> explicit) version of what is in WCAG 1.0. It reflects roughly what I think
> of when I use the term "accessible page", and I think it makes a good
> definition.
> If we were to take it further, we would point out that landing on a page
> doesn't mean that the only way to provide the access required is through the
> content that is on that page. There are various other possiblities - a page
> might be negotiated to provide the content in sensible useful chunks (yes, I
> have used a W3C spec on a mobile phone, and the gateway I had sensibly cut it
> into useful pieces, using the structure required at level double-A of WCAG
> conformance).
> A set of versions can not, I don't think, be accessible if they assume that I
> have come to them through some particular path - it must be possible for any
> user to get to the version that will suit them from any version they happen
> to hit, at least until we have a reliable way of users being able to identify
> the capabilities and preferences for content automatically.
> cheers
> Chaals
Received on Monday, 31 December 2001 23:30:30 UTC

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