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 17:00:55 -0800
Message-Id: <200112150100.fBF10tIV013758@newbolt.sonic.net>
To: phoenixl@sonic.net, poehlman1@home.com, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi,

OK.  The issue of visual effects stonwalling blind users is getting lost
in the discussion.

Just to be sure I understand what you mean:

  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.

It seems that it is acceptable to you that different users get web pages
with the same content but with different appearances, layouts, etc,
depending on each user's preferences.  The concept of universal design
is then moving from on of "one size fits all" to one of "different sizes
provided to different users" as long as the content is the same.

Scott


> 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
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 20:01:01 GMT

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