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: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:37:05 -0500
Message-ID: <003701c184bd$912e4aa0$c2f20141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "Carol Foster" <c.foster@umassp.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
content negotiation means that by some means, determine the appropriate
content to deliver.  this is not the same as having an alternate site
but allows the same information to be presented differently depending on
either user choice or the server determining what is asking for the
content.  This is in keeping with a last resort stand on separate but
equal or in the case we are talking about, seemingly not as equal as it
should be.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Foster" <c.foster@umassp.edu>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: FWD: CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired

My interpretation is also that it is OK to have alternative
when they are all "served from the same bucket" as mentioned, and that
is even a recommended thing.  There is a relevant current (WCAG 1.0)
Priority 3 checkpoint: 11.3 Provide information so that users may
documents according to their  preferences (e.g., language, content type,
etc.).  The techniques for this point mention CSS2 techniques and
called "content negotiation" which is not entirely clear to me.


David Poehlman wrote:

> as I understand the excerpt, it is a server/client side choice issue.
> this is enterpretted to me as being that content is served from the
> bucket and the user has the choice.  I see no reason why we should
> the bar.  The guidelines are still in draft so I wouldn't relie on
> anything in them to be deffinitive on the final.
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 11:36:57 UTC

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