W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Technical Factors: Different Devices

From: <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:09:21 +1000
To: cpl@starlingweb.com
Cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF526C762E.66998BF6-ONCA256D3C.003CA8F0-CA256D3C.003D47EF@domino.bigpond.com>

So Chuck,

Do you have a suggested (additional or re)wording?  I agree entirely with
Matt, but am not sure quite how to restate this last section and its

W R T this point we tried very hard with the Vision Australia redesign
earlier this year to create a standards compliant home page (other still
need some tweaking) that owuld be quite usable on all browsers.

Cheers,  Andrew
Dr Andrew Arch
Manager Online Accessibility Consulting, Vision Australia Foundation
Ph 613 9864 9222; Fax 613 9864 9210; Mobile 0438 755 565
http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/webaccessibility |
http://www.it-test.com.au/ | http://www.dc-anz.org/

Member, Education & Outreach Working Group,
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

                      Chuck Letourneau                                                                               
                      <cpl@starlingweb.        To:       w3c-wai-eo@w3.org                                           
                      com>                     cc:                                                                   
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  Re: Technical Factors: Different Devices                    
                      04/06/2003 10:50                                                                               

Thank you Matt!  You neatly restated the problem I was trying to express
and clearly suggested the direction we should take to highlight it as a


Starling Access Services
"Access A World Of Possibility"

At 2003-06-03 14:50, Matt May wrote:
      On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 01:00  AM, Alan Chuter wrote:
            I think that some sites will have to have multiple versions for
            different device profiles, but what we should claim is that
            each of these versions will be usable with all user agents and
            devices within that profile.

      It appears that this discussion brushes against the difference
      between "usable" and "capable of being used." While the former is
      subjective and squishy, the latter can be claimed by
      standards-conformant sites on all devices. The value of browsing a
      2-megabyte file over a 9.6kbps connection through a four-line phone
      display notwithstanding.

      If sites are designed in a uniform fashion, and in a
      transformation-capable language such as XHTML, the case could be made
      that adhering to a common style (e.g., valid code, sections marked up
      with <h*>, alt text) affords the author the ability to transform the
      existing files in place for use by mobile or smaller displays using

      I do tend to think most of the descriptions I've seen of this benefit
      are a bit overoptimistic or lacking in detail. You don't get this for
      free unless you plan for it. But relative to the jaw-dropping sums
      companies are happy to charge sites for screen-scraping services, it
      may sell some people, or at least get them thinking more about their
      designs. And that dovetails well with the Quality Assurance activity
      and their documents on designing for standards.

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 08:07:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:34 UTC