Re: A recommendation on customized web pages for blind users

Note: this is an issue for the next working group.  The charter for this 
group ends in 2 weeks and before then we need to draft a new charter, 
release another version of techniques (primarily a restructuring), and 
close current open issues.

However, I suggest people check out the latest W3C Recommendations XPath 
and XSLT.

<BLOCKQUOTE>
The World Wide Web Consortium announces two new Recommendations - XSL 
Transformations (XSLT [1]) and XML Path Language (XPath[2]) - that will 
enable the transformation and styled presentation of XML documents. "Anyone 
using XML can now take advantage of XSLT, a powerful new tool for 
manipulating, converting and styling documents, and XPath, a simple way of 
referring to parts of an XML document." said Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director. 
"Together, XSLT and XPath strike a fine balance between simplicity of use 
and underlying power."
</BLOCKQUOTE>

The major theme of the WCAG is "graceful transformation" meaning that 
content is separate from presentation  so that the user can control the 
presentation whether it be on a cell phone, a handheld device, an auto pc, 
etc.  Therefore, as gregory said, we need to address functional limitations.

--wendy

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath


At 01:09 AM 11/18/99 , Scott Luebking wrote:
>Hi, Gregory
>
>I'm not quite sure what to say about the issue of customized web pages.
>If the technology exists to let a user specify how the web pages should
>appear for such preferences as colors, layout, content, etc, why not
>allow for the page to be structured so that it easier to use also?
>
>I guess the first question I will go back to is whether the demo
>customized web page that I've put on the web has features which makes it
>easier to use?  If you haven't done the comparison of the two formats,
>it might be interesting for you to check it out.
>
>The economic counter arguement can probably be made for for both
>adapting general web pages for blind users and for customizing web pages
>for blind users.  The trade-off probably depends on the nature of the
>pages.  For a rather simple web page with little use of layout, it may
>not be that much harder to make it easier to be used by blind users.
>However, if a dynamically generated web page has a very sophisticated
>graphic layout using nested tables, etc, it might be less time consuming
>to produce another page with the same information in a format which is
>easier for blind users to work with.  (I doubt that many graphic
>designers will give up they believe is appropriate for a web page in
>order to accomodate blind users.)  However, in either case, there will
>need to be additional work done to accomodate a blind user's needs.  I
>suspect that it will rarely happen without such effort.
>
>Is stripping out graphics enough to make a web page easier to use?
>Again, depends on the page.  A web page presenting information and links
>in catagories or groups information can improve the efficiency of blind
>users.  For example, blind users often prefer the most important
>information to be towards the beginning of the web page.  Removing
>graphics doesn't accomplish that.
>
>I'll bypass the question on what does blind mean.  (How about a web page
>whose structure has been known to improve the efficiency of some
>individuals whose use of vision is in some way other than typical?)
>
>In terms of the cyberghetto, sighted people will be making decisions for
>blind people.  For example, web designers may follow the guidelines and
>still end up with web pages which can be difficult to navigate by blind
>people, e.g.  two forms one above the other can appear to be one.  Also,
>if guidelines can be developed for a general web page, guidelines can
>also be developed for customized web pages.
>
>With regards to your concern of one-size-fits-all, the same concern can
>be applied to guidelines for general pages too.
>
>The technology for generating customized web pages is actually not that
>hard to do, especially since customized web pages for blind users can be
>much simpler than for sighted users since the layout is much more
>linear.  With the right architecture, it can be as little as an hour or
>two.
>
>It isn't so much an issue of disseminated technologies, but the
>architecture of the software.  If the software is already set up to
>generated information in a variety of formats, this would be just
>another format.
>
>There probably shouldn't be any extra charge, but that of course depends
>on the provider.  Some companies will use any reason to add in an extra
>charge.
>
>What the user would need to do to get a particular format depends on how
>the site is organized.  For example, if the web site is a portal where
>the user is provided options when they sign up, this page format could
>just be another option.
>
>The overhead for generating the page would depend on the architecture of
>the software.  For the browser, it's just another web page.
>
>Blind people and sighted people work with web pages in different ways
>which will require compromises when presented in the same web page.  The
>adavantage of a sophiticated layout for sighted users create navigation
>problems for blind users.  The advantages of information grouped
>together for blind users may lead to less visually interesting web pages
>for sighted users.  (Compare the two types of web pages I've put up.)
>Providing for customized web pages lets each user gets the type of web
>that he/she wants.
>
>How many less than sophisticated blind web users will know to choose
>"serial access"?  Will many assume that it has something to do with a
>serial port?  Will braille readers understand they should select for
>voice output?
>
>Scott
>
>
>
> > Scott Luebking wrote:
> > quote
> >   I'd like to suggest that the guidelines include a section on
> >   customized web pages for blind users when the web pages are
> >   generated dynamically, e.g. search engines, catalogs, etc.
> > unquote
> >
> > aloha, scott!
> >
> > while i sincerely respect and admire the work and energy that you are 
> putting
> > into the effort to ensure blind users (like myself) fully equal access to
> > web-based content, i am troubled by the term quote customized web pages for
> > blind users unquote...
> >
> > my objections fall into 3 categories: philosophic, practical, and 
> perceptual...
> >
> > first, the problem of perception  -- or, more sensibly put, the 
> connotations of
> > "tailoring for the blind"...  asking people to customize output 
> specifically
> > for the blind is likely to evoke one of the following 2 reactions 
> (despite the
> > case that can be made that an ever-increasing number of jurisdictions are
> > developing policies that mandate that certain categories of web-based 
> content
> > be made accessible)
> >
> > 1. the economic counter argument: the blind population is too small for my
> > company to justify the expense
> > 2. the i've already done it argument: we have a stripped down low graphics
> > version of our output slash site already
> >
> > of course, the stripped down low-graphics versions of such sites still 
> tend to
> > use authoring practices slash markup that decreases or interferes with 
> access
> > to the page's content, but that's another topic for another emessage...
> >
> > another perceptual problem is quote what does blind mean? unquote  does 
> it mean
> > no usable vision?  some usable vision?  severely impaired vision?
> >
> > ok, onto my philosophical problems...
> >
> > 1. the cyberghetto -- i don't want to be shunted into a cyberghetto, where
> > someone else is deciding for me what constitutes content customized for 
> a blind
> > user...
> >
> > 2. the one-size-fits-all syndrome -- i wasn't produced by the plastic-mold
> > injection process (although i know that that assertion will come as a 
> surprise
> > to several of the WG's members!) and what makes sense and works for me (as
> > someone who was fully sighted for the first 20 years of my life and has 
> been
> > totally blind for the past 11) may not make sense or work for someone 
> who has
> > been blind since birth, or who was not as fortunate as i to have had some
> > (extremely limited) exposure to the graphical user interface before 
> becoming
> > blind...
> >
> > practical problems:
> > 1. what sorts of technology are you relying on to produce customized 
> web pages
> > for the blind?
> > 2. how well disseminated are the technologies you would advise a 
> web-content
> > producer to employ?
> > 3. how expensive will it be for the end user?
> > 4. will the end user have to jump through hoops in order to get the 
> technology
> > running on his or her machine (as is the case with getting the Sun Java 
> VM and
> > the Java Access Bridge for Windows up and running correctly on a 32-bit
> > MS-Windows box)
> > 5. what is the overhead entailed in utilizing the technology
> >
> > ok -- enough carping...  what i want to stress is universal design 
> strategies
> > that -- to the greatest extent possible -- eliminate the need for 
> alternative
> > versions of a site or a site's output...  but, if you are going to push for
> > what you have termed "content customized for blind users" i'd advise you to
> > change the semantics a bit and ask for "content customized for serial 
> access"
> > and/or "content customized for voice output"...
> >
> > just my ha'penny's worth,
> >         gregory.

Received on Thursday, 18 November 1999 09:04:01 UTC