W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Some questions from CHI-WEB people

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:08:09 -0500
Message-ID: <002001c18cb6$b5bec740$c2f20141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>, <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
there are issues and solutions and some times the lines blurr in both.
You have it the rong way round though.  You start with the right page
and go from there.  assuming right is as right as you can get it without
being too right.  Start with css for instance, and you might not even
need tables.  Learn what you need to learn and don't ask why or how hard
it is going to be.  Testing is a way of life even leaving out
accessibility if even only to make sure the site you develop does what
you want it to in that one really cool browser you like.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
To: <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>; <phoenixl@sonic.net>; <poehlman1@home.com>;
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Some questions from CHI-WEB people


Hi,

There are different ways to view complaints.  As soons as one group, be
it disabled people or web site developers, says its complaints are more
important than another group's complaints, communication and creative
problem solving starts being negatively impacted.

I tend to want to take a bigger picture approach and try to put
everone's complaints into the "hopper" and then see what solutions can
come up that are beneficial to multiple parties.  Sometimes there can be
resistance because often each group believes they are always the ones
who are being asked to give up something.

How much work is needed to learn what degrading gracefully means, to
develop tests of web pages to check for degrading gracefully, to
implement the tests and then fix the problems?  This would seem to
require a lot of extra effort.

The mutiple version strategy probably requires less effort.  In the very
basic two version approach, one version can have a very fancy layout
using tables, etc, while the other "universal" version has the same
information in a very linear approach which only uses tables for data.
There can be significant increase in efficiency since people don't need
to learn CSS and figure out how to make it work on a variety of
browsers.  There is much less need to figure out how a page will degrade
gracefully since the universal version doesn't use table to create a
fancy layout.  While some people may view fancy layouts, etc, as
being an additional layer, many people who request web pages see
the fancy layouts, etc, as being very core to the web site
and accessibility is the additional layer.

I would be very careful about saying "many things are hard".  A similar
view could be said by non-disabled people about disability issues.
I think a more useful way to look at it is to ask how can people work
together to help the various hard aspects of various people's lives.

Scott

> I hear a lot of complaining here.  I hear the same complaints that I
> hear when we discuss usability and the web.  Take the case of tables
> versus css.  which will degrade more gracefully in older browsers?
The
> biggest hurdles to accessibility from a mechanical stand point have
been
> the point and click tools that have been sold for huge amounts of
money
> so that sites can go up that only look good but do not validate, are
not
> uniform in their structure and are generally a mess to maintain.
There
> is no argument that I know of against the use of multiple versions of
a
> page when a fallback is required but the starting point should be the
> accessible/usable site.  If fancy stuff goes ontop of that in another
> channel, fine.  If special delivery mechanisms are employed aimed at
> special targets, fine.  What we seem to be discussing here though is
> much more than accessibility so it's too bad that it is hard.  many
> things are hard.
Received on Monday, 24 December 2001 15:07:46 GMT

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