RE: Comments 465, 466, 545 - Wording of Success Criterion 4.2.1, 4.2.3

Hi Gez

  I agree with the discoverability part -- except if this became a widely
known convention.  

As to the other techniques.   They all have a fatal flaw.  Remember the
discussion started with an assumption that we had a page that was totally
inaccessible and had a URI - so the person could arrive at that page from
say GOOGLE or a site search. 


So - looking at the list from your email.  



> * Address the accessibility issues.

I don't understand this one.  If you mean - make it accessible, it is not a
technique for addressing the SC that says "for inaccessible content...."

> 
> * Ensure visitors see the accessible version first, with a 
> link to the inaccessible version.

If there is a link to the inaccessible version - then it has a URI and is a
web unit itself.  So this SC has to be applied to it as well.  And then it
fails.  (unless the site isn't required to be accessible in which case you
can just omit the page from conformance claim to start with)

Also - I could have Googled into this inaccessible page - so I would have no
way of finding the accessible page. 

> 
> * Provide a link to the accessible version (for technologies 
> that support accessible links).

The whole question was how to do this from totally inaccessible content. So
this technique wouldn't work for the case being discussed. 

> 
> * Style sheet switching (for technologies that support style 
> sheet switching).

Changing the HTML ending is 1000% easier than style sheet switching I'm
afraid. 

> 
> * User preferences (temporary measure until content negotiation is
> possible) - provide an area for people to set their 
> preferences on the website, and then deliver the content 
> according to those preferences.

Doesn't meet the SC.   From the inaccessible page (if I got there from
GOOGLE) I have no way of finding the place on the website to turn on this
feature.   



See the problem? 



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gez Lemon [mailto:gez.lemon@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:40 PM
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea; ryladog@earthlink.net; 
> public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments 465, 466, 545 - Wording of Success 
> Criterion 4.2.1, 4.2.3
> 
> Hi Gregg,
> 
> > My suggestion was only a SUFFICIENT technique.   It would 
> mean that if you
> > did this it would be sufficient.
> >
> > A sufficient technique doesn't not mean the only way.  Just one 
> > acceptable way.
> 
> I thought that I might have misunderstood what you were 
> suggesting. I understand the concept of sufficient, but 
> disagree that this technique could be regarded as sufficient, 
> as there is no method of discovery short of physically 
> changing the last part of the URI.
> 
> > I only mentioned this technique so that we had one way we 
> could count on for
> > alternate forms that were completely inaccessible.   I was 
> concerned that
> > there was not method without it.   But other methods could 
> exist   -- like
> > content negotiation with accessible version as default that 
> we discussed
> > before.   Or in the future - all browsers could support an 
> "alternate
> > accessible" button or something.
> 
> We have techniques for alternate forms that are completely 
> inaccessible:
> 
> * Address the accessibility issues.
> 
> * Ensure visitors see the accessible version first, with a 
> link to the inaccessible version.
> 
> * Provide a link to the accessible version (for technologies 
> that support accessible links).
> 
> * Style sheet switching (for technologies that support style 
> sheet switching).
> 
> * User preferences (temporary measure until content negotiation is
> possible) - provide an area for people to set their 
> preferences on the website, and then deliver the content 
> according to those preferences.
> 
> I'm not sure how much mileage there is content negotiation.
> Negotiation is usually performed by passing data in the HTTP 
> headers, but it's difficult to imagine what someone would 
> pass to receive the inaccessible version. The only way I 
> could ever see that technique working would be if everyone 
> was to keep a personal RDF file that indicated their 
> preferences, and websites delivered content according to 
> those preferences. For it to work, the data would need to be 
> standardised around the world, and there's the question of 
> privacy - I'm not sure people would volunteer to maintain a 
> document that they pass to anyone that detailed their 
> ability, or even if that approach is ethical. I understand 
> this technique is part of the semantic web, but I think it 
> overlooks the privacy issues.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Gez
> 
> 
> --
> _____________________________
> Supplement your vitamins
> http://juicystudio.com
> 
>