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

Re: FWD: CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired

From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:37:27 -0800
Message-Id: <200112141537.fBEFbRBV013648@newbolt.sonic.net>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

I think that the issue of a single web page might be changing in version
2.0 of the guidelines.  Recently, someone sent me this info about 2.0:

     S1 - serving content in different forms is an acceptable way to comply
     with the guidelines as long as equivalents for all of the information
     are provided in the different forms and it is all available through the
     same URI (though it may be linked to it) (server side solutions are
     acceptable - as specified)


> I agree with David.
> Providing an alternative version of the site is not the preferred solution. We
> need to aim to provide one accessible site for all users. Developing an
> alternative site is considered a fall-back, last resort solution in the W3C
> guidelines. Here is the relevant section of the guidelines regarding
> alternative versions:
> 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a
> link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has
> equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the
> inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1] (Checkpoint 11.4)
> Note. Content developers should only resort to alternative pages when other
> solutions fail because alternative pages are generally updated less often than
> "primary" pages. An out-of-date page may be as frustrating as one that is
> inaccessible since, in both cases, the information presented on the original
> page is unavailable. Automatically generating alternative pages may lead to
> more frequent updates, but content developers must still be careful to ensure
> that generated pages always make sense, and that users are able to navigate a
> site by following links on primary pages, alternative pages, or both. Before
> resorting to an alternative page, reconsider the design of the original page;
> making it accessible is likely to improve it for all users. Refer this URL:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/#tech-alt-pages
> The "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) page on W3C's "Web Content
> Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" also refers to this in FAQ 8:
> 8. Why don't the guidelines recommend using text-only pages?
> Text-only pages should not be necessary to ensure accessibility of Web pages
> that follow the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines," except in very rare
> cases. In fact, text-only pages are frequently counterproductive to
> accessibility since they tend to be kept less up-to-date than "primary pages,"
> or in some cases leave out information that is on primary pages.
> Many sites that have made a commitment to accessibility in the past have used
> text-only pages as a solution; however, by following these guidelines it
> should be unnecessary in almost all cases, or even inadvisable, to set up and
> maintain a separate set of text-only pages.
> So in summary, while it is commendable that Amazon have at least developed a
> Web site that is more accessible, this should have been a consideration for
> the main site rather than as a second-best alternative.
> Denise
> -------------------------------------------
> Denise
> Dr Denise L Wood
> Lecturer: Professional Development (online teaching and learning)
> University of South Australia
> CE Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000
> Ph:    (61 8) 8302 2172 / (61 8) 8302 4472 (Tuesdays & Thursdays)
> Fax:  (61 8) 8302 2363 / (61 8) 8302 4390
> Mob: (0413 648 260)
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 10:37:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC