W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Multiple versions of a web page

From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:02:38 -0800
Message-Id: <200201011702.g01H2ct8016183@newbolt.sonic.net>
To: charles@w3.org, phoenixl@sonic.net
Cc: cyns@microsoft.com, kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi,

I think there are basically three levels of approaches to providing
different versions of web pages:

    low level    -     information is stored in primary version of web
                       page and extracted as needed

    middle level    -  the source is self-contained and self-configuring
                       and creates different versions of itself depending on
		       desired characteristics

    high level      -  content is stored in something like XML or database
                       and then transformed as needed

The web site developer can choose depending on what skills and resources
are available.

Scott

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Scott Luebking wrote:
> 
>   Hi,
> 
>   I agree that there probably won't be a universal solution which
>   consists of some combination of multiple versions of a web page
>   and some sets of transformations on certain versions of the
>   that web page.
> 
>   I think it is important to provide web page developers a variety of
>   approaches from which they can choose to provide accessibility
>   in accordance with the skills and resources they have available.
> 
> CMN Well, it sounds like we are thinking on the same page then - this is what
> I keep understanding from discussions in the working group.
> 
> Scott
>   Rather than thinking in terms of a generic web page which could be be a
>   little misleading, I've been thinking more along the lines of a
>   "basic browser" version of web page.  I believe it might be easier for
>   web page developers to work with.
> 
> CMN Well, the "whatever-we-call-it-that-almost-anyone-can-use" version would
> be one that implemented all (or all of a given level of) the relevant
> checkpoints of WCAG. There is some push for people to be able to claim
> conformance for a page based on the fact that there is an alternative version
> which is accessible even if the particular page in question is not. I don't
> see anything wrong with that, provided that it is possible to get to the
> appropriate version, and the mechanism is clear and "available to everyone".
> 
> I think where the discussion comes in is what kinds of techniques are OK for
> making things available - if there is a fairly generic version and CC/PP to
> autioomatically provide something else is that enough, or do there have to be
> markers in the page content itself, or some other set of mechanisms? These
> are questions to resolve in working on this, not necessarily something we
> should expect to ansewr in the next week or so.
> 
> Scott
>   Providing access to content in a database might be helpful, but I do
>   wonder how many users would take advantage of it.  It is not clear to
>   me that the percentage of technologically daring people is significantly
>   greater in the disabled population than in the general population.
> 
> CMN That was just an example, and as I suggested in my interpretation of the
> Monash research I alluded to, I think the percentage of people wo will make
> use of it would be low. But the benefit to that group of having it accessible
> will be very high, just as the percentage of people who cannot see anything
> is very low, but the benefit for those people of making things accessible is
> very great.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Charles
Received on Tuesday, 1 January 2002 12:02:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT