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: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 16:45:08 -0500
Message-ID: <001e01c185b1$c69147c0$c2f20141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Now that we all understand each other, I have some comments in your
message below marked with dp:
look for designing a more accessible web on trace.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: FWD: CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired


Hi,

The phrase "multiple serve" is not very clear since there are a number
of interpretations depending on various aspects.
dp: I would not use that in many contexts but we know what we are
talking about here and I have explained it.

While some people consider multiple versions of a web page to be a cop
out,
other people consider it to be a reasonable use of technology to
accomodate the needs of varying types of users.  Since the text that
I've quoted before is a consensus item, it would seem that the
guidelines
group see providing multiple versions of the same page as a reasonable
use to technology in addressing the needs of a variety of people.
dp: let's stick to exact quotes please.  I did say that it is often and
most often at that used as a cop out for not providing adaquate design
in the first place.

You keep saying that this is in the consensus appendix but as I
explained before, you have to look at the first and last lines of that
excerpt to fully appreciate its impact.

Going back to universal design, a common approach is to provide both
ramps and stairs so people can have their choice.  Providing multiple
versions of a web page would be consistant with that approach.
dp: only if it is not possible to fil the bill with one and I mean not
possible and only if those pages were served from the same data set and
there fore had no chance of not being updated when the content was
changed or other changes were made to the site that bear on the
rendering of the data.

From a technology point of view, it is probably often easier to
offer different versions of a web page rather than trying to get
everything in one page.  Different versions helps to reduce the
conflicts
that can arise in a single version.
dp: I'd like to see you take a typically well designed page and use the
guidelines to fail it.

The web, like much of technology, is evolving.  While some people may
wish
the web was more fixed, other people look at the initial web as being
the seed from which newer aspects have sprung.  If guidelines are
developed
with the goal of holding back development of technology, they have a
good chance of being signored or seen as irrelevant, unless there is
some regulatory obligation.
dp: guidelines are not developped to hold back the web.  the squabbling
among the players does that well enough.  Guidelines are developped in
hopes to ensure that the ramps are there along side the stairs.

Please refer to my complete remarks when addressing points so that they
don't have to be repeated.  We need an approach that allows for the web
to grow and also for it to become more not less accessible such as that
beind developped for pedestrians.

Scott

PS  It would be helpful if you indicated which particular Trace
documents
you think I should be aware of.  I'm familiar with a number of them.

> multiple serve means two things.  it means the same site served in
> multiple ways depending on the server/client communication / a user
> choice as presented or a non parallel site non parallel meaning that
all
> the sites are developped independantly using different emphasis such
as
> one flashy, one text only and one not flashy with everything else but
> accessible to those not requiring a text only site of which there are
> few to none.
>
> the last one is over used.  it is the cop out that many sites have
> because of time or resources or know how or whatever to making a site
> "accessible" that doesn't have to have a separate site.  it can be a
> legitimate way of doing things but if possible, it should be done
either
> via user choice or via synchronous means.
>
> As I and others on this list have said many times before, the web is
not
> tv, it is not news paper or a magazine and not even a book but it is
> composed at its best a set of hyper text which means that documents
are
> linked to one another in a hyper/independant way such that one can be
> presented with the material but be able to order that material to her
> liking.  I know we will have to live with the evolution of the "web"
but
> it is precisely that "evolution" that is causing so many of the
problems
> we face today.  The other thing the "web" does is provide lots of
> connectivity to different things and ways of interfacing with them.  I
> like forms for instance because they can be quite useful as a means of
> interacting with components of the web and with the individuals who
have
> something to provide through the web whether it be different content,
a
> different set of documents or a product shipped to your door.  This
and
> more can be done in web style if only we view the web as the web and
not
> as something else.
>
>
> I am beginning to think that we need something for the web such as
that
> which is being done with pedestrians vs motorists and sidewalks.
> Standards are now being developped that will make pedestrian travel
> easier and they include considerations of all forms of pedestrian
travel
> whether with a cane, a guide dog or a wheel chair.  This though is
> somewhat what the wcag tried and is still trying to do.  There are
other
> documents either finished or in progress at the wai which attempt to
> build on the work of wcag in accomplishing the same thing.
>
> Again, I urge you to read the documents at trace.
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2001 16:45:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT