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 19:44:23 -0500
Message-ID: <000e01c18501$a45240c0$c2f20141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi, so much was snipped here and not placed in the context anywhere in
the message that I fear we may have lost the thread but none the less, I
have answers marked with dp: in your message below:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 7:06 PM
Subject: RE: FWD: CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired


Hi,

It might be of interest to do testing of blind computer users
with varying levels of screen reader ability to see who may or
may not be stonewalled by what kinds of visual effects.  For example,
what co-relations are there between form layouts which use different
types of
visual effects, screen reader skills and success in filling out forms.
dp: there is no visual for a screen reader.

Just to be sure I understand, in your statement:

    "That presentation should be delivered from the same data set and in
    the same way to me as it is to one who has a different need than I
    for a presentation."

does this mean that you want the same presentation as everyone?  Is
this consistant with the consensus statement from wcag 2.0?
dp: What needs to happen here is that the full content needs to be
delivered.  I use the same address as anyone else and get an accesible
result through one of several ways already described but possibly one
which is that the user agent/at combination serves it up to me in
meaningful fashion.

     RE: CLIENT SIDE AND SERVER SIDE SOLUTIONS
     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 be misinterpreting the text, but it looks like there is not a
requirement
for all users to be able to use the same form/version.
dp: see my cascade order message on this.

Scott

> some things I don't understand marked with dp below since we are
> focusing on web sets and the like in which I have a multitude of
> experiences.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
> To: <harrry@email.com>; <phoenixl@sonic.net>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 2:52 PM
> Subject: RE: Fwd from CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually
> Impaired
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The first question actually reflects that different people have
> different preferences for web pages.  This also varies depending
> on the purpose of using a particular set of web pages.  Some
> people are more like "just the facts" type with no frills.
> Other people want a richer visual experience of the web pages
> and prefer a slicker, flashy view.
> dp: preference is not what I thought this was about rather I see the
> universal design process no matter what it is applied to as having an
> end result that is better for all in a functional way.
>
> This starts addressing an issue of universal design and web pages.
> People vary in what they want.  A problem that universal design
> needs to address is what to do when the needs of the various users
> conflict.  In the usual architecture example of redundancy,
> ramps, stairs, etc are possible.  No ones needs are necessarily being
> compromised.  However, universal design and web pages starts
introducing
> the issue of conflicting needs amony the various users.  For example,
> some blind people prefer drop down list boxes because they need
> less training to use with some screen readers.  Some designers
> like list boxes boxes because they take up less web page real estate.
> Some sighted users prefer radio buttons or checkboxes because
> they don't have to do any additional actions to see all the choices.
> dp: Again, focusing on what we like and don't like misses the mark.
The
> technology currently allows for many things and it is up to the
designer
> to do the best possible in order that the experience will meet their
> needs and the expectations of their target audiences.  Nothing that is
> done that I know of is to everyone's liking.  for instance, talking
> about needs, the basic need is for the appropriate language for the
end
> user to be available before anything else can even happen and we don't
> see a lot of availability for that.  On the issue of which set of
> interface elements to present, it is a matter of design.  if it can be
> used equally or accessibly it can be utillized by the designer.  I
don't
> have to like it.
>
> Visually rich and stimulating web pages can make it easier for some
> people to remember information.  However, additional visual
information
> can create confusion for other users, e.g. some learning disabled
> people,
> some blind people.
>
> dp: I do not take issue with the idea that there is such a thing as
> clutter for some people but I do not see how visual effects can
> stonewall a blind person or be better for anyone unless their
cognition
> relies on this in which case, there is a case for more not less but a
> different more.
>
> Some disabled people have pushed for similar experiences, e.g.
> knowing they are using the same web page as non-disabled people,
> even though some disabled are using access technology which causes
> them to actually experience web pages in significantly different
> ways.  (I have to admit I tend to focus more on the importance
> of getting the same information rather than the same presentation.)
> dp: I write and debug web sets and know the difference between what I
> get and what is delivered to a user agent that does not have the
> advantage of allowing its user to browse with eyes closed or off
> somewhere else.  It is content that I am after but at the same time, I
> can also understand how my rendering looks ugly and may be confusing
to
> one who depends on vision so presentation is important.  I will never
> get the same presentation but the issue of how that presentation is
> achieved is an important one which is what started this discussion in
> the first place.  That presentation should be delivered from the same
> data set and in the same way to me as it is to one who has a different
> need than I for a presentation.  And, Yes, I want the images, I want
the
> cutsie stuff if it is there and it better be available to me in a form
I
> can use.  Take a spacer image for example.  I want its textual effect
> which is a space where one should be.  I actually need that for my
work.
> We need to be able to sit down along side each other and be on the
same
> page as much as possible.  This is why user agents such as web sound
and
> ibm home page reader are so important because when we work together,
we
> can have this.  I also like for my banking and shopping and reading
etc
> to have something I can use that provides me with more convenience and
> some times, that means a different presentation but most of the time,
> when I find that a page is designed accessibly and show my rendering
to
> someone, I am told that it doesn't look that much different than the
one
> they get.  I also like to read long articles and will use still
> something else like lynx instead of ie to interface with the web site
> simply because on that day, in that hour or for that particular site,
it
> more suits the task.
>
> Scott
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 19:44:09 GMT

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