W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE: issue with Guideline 4.2 )

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:16:40 +0200
To: lguarino@adobe.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <00b101c4e810$e44e8b50$680aa8c0@IBMA4E63BE0B9E>

>Lisa,

  >This is a good technique, but only if the target technology
>can actually support the functionality of the new technology.


Yes, and sometimes the quality of the experence may downgrade if the target
technology - say HTML just can not handel all the cool new stuff.
But is that worse then just using the target technology in the first place?

Keep well
L


>Loretta

----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 11:12 am
Subject: Re: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE: issue
with Guideline 4.2 )

> The result of the transcoding option is that people can
pioneer new
> accessibility techniques and technologies without being
stopped by
> backward compatibility and adoption issues.
>
> So asking in asking  adoption we are just asking for a
serverside
> interim solution.
>
>
> Keep well
> Lisa
>
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Gregg Vanderheiden
>  To: 'Lisa Seeman' ; 'Yvette P. Hoitink' ; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>  Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 8:16 PM
>  Subject: RE: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE:
issue with
> Guideline 4.2 )
>
>
>  Thanks Lisa
>
>
>
>      This is good to note.   If invokable by users - then these
> serversbecome user agents and there would be user agents
that support.
>
>
>
>  If invoked by web sites themselves, they become part of
what the
> websiteis serving so their effect is included in the 'delivery
unit'.
>
>
>
>  So these server techniques can be used two ways to solve
the
> problem.
>
>
>  The problem then comes down to when there are no
transcoding
> servers to
> change the technology into accessible technology
>
>  .
>
>
>
>
>  Gregg
>
>   -- ------------------------------ 
>  Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>  Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>  Director - Trace R & D Center
>  University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------
----------------
> --------
> --
>
>  From: Lisa Seeman [lisa@ubaccess.com]
>  Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 7:01 AM
>  To: Gregg Vanderheiden; 'Yvette P. Hoitink'; w3c-wai-
gl@w3.org
>  Subject: Re: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE:
issue with
> Guideline 4.2 )
>
>
>
>  >   - do we really want to say that something is accessible
if it
> cannotbe
>  >used by people with disabilities -- but theoretically could
if
> someday  > someone made a tool that allowed it?
>
>  My 2 cents...
>
>  When I started using RDF  (resources description
framework)
> techniques to
> enhance accessibility we had the same problem. It was clear
that this
> technology we could do much much more for different
disability related
> scenarios that using standard HTML techniques. However, if
we
> weighted for
> user agent support it would never happen. They will only
support that
> authors are doing, and authors will only use the techniques
that
> work with
> Assistive Technologies (AT). Catch 22 as they say - the one
can not
> hapenwithout the other.
>
>
>
>  We got over the "chicken and egg" senario by adding a
serversisde
> transcoding/ middlewear service at the same time. We
chose a few
> user cases
> or "prepackaged" scenarios (general accessibility, page map
visual
> rendering/ enhanced navigation etc..) we then  applied the
RDF to make
> transcoded versions of the same content accessible and
optimized
> to the
> different scenarios or user cases -but using HTML so it
workes with
> currentAssistive Technologies.
>
>
>
>  We hope more assistive technologies will support RDF
directly.
> However, in
> the mean time, if anyone wanted to use RDF to enhance
> accessibility, they
> can use the serverside (free) service, and get it working
today.
>
>
>
>  The same technique can be other platforms -if they want
to they can
> provide sever side accessibility services until "AT" catches
up and
> directlysupports their accessibility features.
>
>
>
>  What does need to be tolerated is to allow different
versions,
> based on
> the same source document so long as you can easily reach
the one
> versionfrom the other.
>
>
>
>  Keep well
>
>  L
>
>
>
>
>
>  Yvette wrote:
>
>
>  <snip>
>  I would like to go even further and propose to delete the
entire
> success  criteria that there must be at least one  UAAG-
compliant
> user agent for
> the
>  chosen technology.
>
>  I strongly think WCAG 2 should embrace new technologies.
> Technology and
>  accessible user agents are a chicken-and-egg thing. If we
require
> to use
>  only technologies for which UAAG *-compliant user agents
exist,
> you can't
>  use a new technology that doesn't already have accessible
UA's.
> That means
>  that only people who do not care about accessibility use
that new
> technology
>  and the accessibility features are never used, to the
> manufacturers don't
>  see the need to support those features. This leaves a lot of
> people in the
>  cold.
>
>  If, on the other hand, we say you can write your content on
the
> (initially  false) assumption that there is a user agent that is
> UAAG *-compliant,
>  people will use the accessibility features of the technology
and
>  manufacturers will see the need to support the accessibility
> features.
>  We have seen with WCAG 1 and Flash what can happen if
we set a
> high bar on
>  new technologies. Some of my own clients decided not to
make
> parts of
> their
>  website accessible because they really wanted to use the
> capabilities of
>  Flash and did not have the resources to make an equivalent
> accessible  alternative as well. They didn't use the
accessibility
> features of Flash
>  because that would cost extra work and they thought that
wouldn't
> help  accessibility because they still would not conform to
the
> minimum level of
>  WCAG 1. This means that even now that Flash plug-ins
support
> accessibility  features, their Flash content is still
inaccessible.
> I really want to
> avoid
>  this situation in WCAG 2.
>
>  A simple fact of life is that organizations WILL use new
> technologies  (unless forced by legislation). Instead of
forbidding
> that, let's tell
> them
>  how to use the technologies in an accessible manner so
more
> people will
> have
>  access to that content in the long run!
>
>  Yvette Hoitink
>  Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
>  E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
>  WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2004 10:29:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT