W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2005

proposal to add the following to the guidelines introduction

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:59:04 +0200
To: W3c-Wai-Gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <ABEAIGDDLALMIBFJDPGDMEOFCAAA.lisa@ubaccess.com>
HI

We discussed on the call that providing a simplified version/ rendering of
the site will not brake any guidelines such as thoughs requiring consistency
between delivery units - even though, clearly, this will result in a
different interface.

I think (And I admit to being biased in this area) that we need to be very
clear that this is Ok. Further, in the techniques we are being biased
towards what assistive technology vendors for the vision impaired support
today. This has an obvious cost of discouraging the use and evolution of new
techniques and protocols

The reason I said I was biased is, in part, because of the DHTML techniques
that we are working on in the PF group in the WAI. This also involves RDF
and is some  what entrepreneurial.

Also the technology we have been developing at UB (SWAP) is based on RDF and
making content adaptable, both for traditional accessibility needs and
learning disabilities and different learning styles.

The compromise we are making at UB for traditional support is via
middleware, IE server generated real time generation of traditionally
accessible pages, even though our base pages use any html/xml and RDF. This
means (and this is the important bit) That traditional support of
accessibility is provided and all content is provided in a form that
complies with  HTML techniques. It does not mean that all renderings of the
same content complies with all HTML techniques. It is adaptive - that is the
point. You can switch it off and on, add to it ect. - create a tailored user
experience.
Note this would make almost any level 3 requirement appropriate for any site

As I have said  before, I have been developing this and am therefore biased.
However I believe that the development of such platforms is good for the
future/ next generation of accessibility.  However I think that some people
may avoided such techniques because you can not say all options of pages
comply with all techniques. Further, we are promoting conformance with
techniques as to what is supported today, and this could mean that evolution
of new better techniques are stifaled.

I hence proposes that add the following to the guidelines introduction

When multiple renderings options of content exists. These guidelines can be
conformed to by providing a version of content that conforms to these
guidelines.  The conformant version of content must be generate either in
real time or after any nonconforming content has been generated.  All
content and functionality provided  must be available in an accessible form,
however, simplified renderings used to conform to level three requirements
relating to understandability may have reduced content and functionality.



All  the best

Lisa Seeman

www.ubaccess.com
Received on Monday, 31 October 2005 00:01:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT