- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:06:31 -0500
- To: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
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