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

RE: Multiple versions of a web page

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:31:24 -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.4.30.0201030124270.23840-100000@tux.w3.org>
It isn't clear to me exactly how these divide, but I think we have the same
range of possibilities in mind.

One possibility is to ahve a page that we think is pretty much accessible,
because the sort of transformations users commonly apply (colours, text
size/style, what multimideia to display or not) happen gracefully.

Another is to have the page generated in several forms to particularly suit
some kind of transformation.

Whether to go down one route or another, or to combine the two approaches,
depends on the author's skills, needs, and resources.

So what we need to do is work out what are the requirements for multiple
versions of content, and what techniques can be used to meet those



On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Scott Luebking wrote:


  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.


  > 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

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 Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:31:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:40 UTC