- 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
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 sub-points. 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 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/ Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb. To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org com> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: Technical Factors: Different Devices w3c-wai-eo-reques t@w3.org 04/06/2003 10:50 PM 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 benefit. Chuck 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 XSLT. 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. - m
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 08:07:31 UTC