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

Re: CC/PP, Usability for PWDs, the Edapta model, and You

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:22:09 -0000
Message-ID: <03af01c16879$e7ca2240$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
"Kynn Bartlett":

> At 02:45 AM 11/8/2001 , Jim Ley wrote:
> >If the system is used by servers, then you have to provide information
> >otherwise you won't get accessible content - if you do get accessible
> >content despite not sending any CC/PP information - then the CC/PP
> >information is almost useless to everyone concerned, other than people
> >who like getting stats to justify only supporting a minority - as is
the
> >current situation where lots of people justify creating IE only sites
due
> >to its overwhelming dominance.
>
> I'm a bit lost here as to what your main point is, mainly because
> you're stringing together a number of sentences.

I'd appreciate Kynn, and your point would be more effective if your posts
did not contain so many personal attacks but concentrated on the issues
themselves, I feel complaining without offering anything constructive
about my inability in written English is particularly unfair

> I don't see how that's "useless" at all nor does it justify creating
> IE-only sites.

That's how the statistics for current UA's is used though by authors, and
it will be even more so with CC/PP - there have been many questions
asking for statistics on the number of disabled users to create Business
cases, if CC/PP shows <1% of a speech browser (say) then there's no
business case for supporting them, if it's an unknown, or we can create a
more unified approach, then there is a business case.

> >Content negotiation based on browsers or platforms or systems have
shown
> >not to work, people already attempt it based on UA strings - there's
> >numerous examples of this technique failing - nowhere in the CC/PP
drafts
> >that I can see have anything to address this problem.
>
> On the contrary, content negotiation works fine all the time;
> I have no idea why you would make the claim that it does not.

Content negotiation based on UA strings works atrociously, if you'd spent
a few minutes reading comp.lang.javascript you'd see hundreds of
situations where using the UA string creates failures - and that's when
the author believes there is only a IE/NN duopoly and it still fails in
one of those, let alone the 23+ different javascript supporting browsers
I know of (+all their different versions of course.)

> For example, I believe the W3C's CSS server does browser
> detection.

Perhaps that explains why I get broken CSS then - What does it give
Snufkin? - how can I find out, and get it corrected so I have valid CSS?
Do you have a resource, or an email address where I can address this?

> At no time should the user have to enter their own CC/PP
> profiles for their hardware or software, and user preferences/
> choices should be made simple as described above.
>
> > > Such information should be covered by a P3P privacy policy,
> >Which is meaningless really - I can put whatever I want in a P3P
privacy
> >policy doesn't mean I am reputable - and what about all the
> >caches/systems in between.
>
> Is there some sort of paranoia bug going around that I'm not
> aware of?  It seems to be catching.

You made a defence that P3P would allow a user to protect themselves from
increased hacking risk (only part of the defence, and I agreed with the
whole.)   This is of course silly as anyone who was thinking of using the
CC/PP information to make hacking simpler would also lie about their P3P
policy.

> > > Nothing in this makes you any more or less likely to have your
> > > system broken into,
> >Certainly not, but equally little of it is particularly relevant to a
web
> >designer.
>
> Wait, device characteristics and user preferences are of no
> relevance to a web designer?

CPU, Bluetooth etc.  Screen Size (because it says nothing about how large
my fonts are, or how large my viewport is). Consider Figure 3-9 in <URL:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/ > it says nothing of use about
accessibility or the user, it talks about the User Agent (which you've
just argued against due to the "table of capalities" needed.) and then it
talks about platforms - again this prevents new platforms from arriving -
nowhere does it do anything about capabilities - so is the current
proposal useless and against what you want of CC/PP if so where are the
reasonable proposals that I might be able to support. The current
proposals are nothing but a rejigging of the failed UA string.

> And CC/PP likewise will only send what someone chooses to send.

In one paragraph users don't do anything for it to work - and now they
get full control - it's difficult to argue both ways.

Jim.
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 12:23:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:58 GMT