- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:51:46 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
"Marja-Riitta Koivunen": > Sorry to jump in here but could it be something like the following. Didn't > check all the technical details, but tried to look what the users might need. > > Scenario 1: > > A blind user has defined with cc/pp that he/she can only look linearized > tables. A noble idea and one much touted in the Accessibility groups for what CC/PP does, however the actual working documents for it provide no mechanism to say any such things, they are concenred only with platform and operating system, this is something that does nothing to promote Device Independance, it only promotes segregation and author choice of what's best for me, based on the browser I'm using not what I am (for example, I like to scroll horizontally in AvantGo on my PDA, it makes pages feel more like their non PDA versions which I'm familiar with and I want images on my PDA's - This isn't generally the assumed author choice the PDA versions of sites are generally weaker than accessible normal versions.) It also introduces barriers to entry for new browsers, which means they will have to lie within their CC/PP settings or get something perhaps less than is reasonable - as has been shown throughout the short history of the web so far, due to content negotiation on browser (via HTTP_USERAGENT) browsers lie in their UA. CC/PP doesn't change this. In the mobile world there maybe a case for it, and this is where the Working Group seems to be working with CC/PP (although there's little sign in public of development at all.) > When this user asks a page with a table the server that he/she is > contacting transforms it to a linearized from using the defined service or > shows the ready made linearized version. If the linearized version is much > older than the original page the service gives a warning. Such information does need to be reflected in EARL, I just don't see how chasing CC/PP is valuable against subclassing platform ourselves. (Assuming Sean hasn't turned this up...) Jim.
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 19:20:15 UTC