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

Re: Navigation to Alternate HTML for Screen Readers

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 13:49:35 -0000
Message-ID: <01d501c14f36$e68b4640$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
"Kynn Bartlett" wrote:
> At 10:07 PM +0100 2001/10/06, Jim Ley wrote:
> >  > >>Does anyone know of any emerging standards (explicit or
implicit) for
> >how to quickly and easily direct screen-reader users to an alternate
> >of HTML?
> >There is no support for CC/PP available, without any there it cannot
> >used or suggested as solution in the guidelines, pie in the sky
> >suggestions only mislead people, there IMO must be support before it
> >its way into the guidelines...  (in any case UA's can do almost
> >that CC/PP can provide without any of the CC/PP drawbacks.)
> The question was whether there are any emerging standards.  CC/PP is
> indeed "emerging" and in the future will prove to be very useful for
> web accessibility.

Emerging in the sense of there's a suggestion, there's more of a standard
for RFC1149, there are at least available implementations (CPIP - Carrier
Pigeon Internet Protocol.), whether it ever gets implementations or will
be useful is yet to be seen, where's the support for it from amoung UA
and site developers?  What timescale do you envisage it reaching a
critical mass level in the marketplace - Why is it reasonable to base
recommendations today on its availability?

> Part of this is because HTML 4.01 is an extremely limited markup
> language, and part of this is because whenever one group's user
> is a _derivative_ of another group's, by necessity you will see
> suffer.

Representation of HTML 4.01 is down to a stylesheet (I'll look at
scripting shortly), therefore there is no visual representation inherent
in HTML 4.01 to which you can say that an aural version is a derivative
of it.

Clientside scripting complicates this view, as it effects the usability
of a page, however in this situation, an aural (or otherwise) scripting
solutions, need not be at a different url, the same url with different
scripts supplied are sufficient.

> You are correct when you say that if all you care about is
> and not ease of use, HTML 4.01 is probably all that's warranted, but
> if you want to deliver a GOOD user interface to users, even those who
> are blind, it is important to not merely say "you have ALT text and
> skip-links, that should be enough!"

When did I ever say that?  You need to provide examples of a Good user
interface for visual, that is not a usable with screen readers, yet meets
WAI guidelines on using appropriate technology properly, and then provide
a GOOD user interface for the non-visual.

Received on Sunday, 7 October 2001 09:55:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:14 UTC