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 19:41:53 -0800
Message-Id: <200112150341.fBF3fr7A024114@newbolt.sonic.net>
To: harrry@email.com, phoenixl@sonic.net, poehlman1@home.com, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Just a small point.  During 1.0 there was technology for using
the same content in different versions.  For example, some web sites
used relational databases to store context to present in different

The consensus item in 2.0 mentioned before supports different versions of
web pages from a server.  This type of item was not in 1.0 except as
a last resort for accessibility.


> Maybe the last post was a bit of an overstatement.  HTML will without doubt
> continue for a long time as do all legacy technologies.
> The point I was trying to make was that the 2.0 guidelines have been writen
> now with access to many new techniques for making things accessible which
> did not exist when the 1.0 Guidelines were written.  2.0 presuposes that
> these technologies exist, it seems to me the reason that statements such
> as....until user agents support... are not so apparent.
> To use another context as we are really talking about discrimination, until
> two years ago in my town in order not to discriminate against people it was
> esential that alternative transport was provided (such as Multi purpose
> taxis) for people using wheelchairs who were unable to use busses.
> Suddenly someone got the bright idea of making bussess accessible.  The old
> guidelines specifying alternate transport was needed suddenly became
> irrelevent,  but of course they still apply when legacy busses are used.
> To me the web is the same.  Once we sometimes had to provide basic
> alternatives and of course the guidelines had to specify this but now using
> available technology we can achieve the aim of not discriminating in another
> way, hence the new guidelines.
> Of course those who are writng the guidelines would be the best to answer
> what they intend.
> Harry Woodrow
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 22:41:58 UTC

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