Re: Rolls of interfaces in your favorite colors (was Re: Terminology)

Hi, Charles

I'm not sure you are understanding what I am saying.  I'm referring to
well structured information as being that stored in XML.  The XML
technology allows that information to be transformed into dynamically
generated HTML web pages according to each user's preferences.  I can
get my dynamically generated web pages in the gloriously graphics form
and blind users can get their dynamically generated web pages organized
so that the semantic information is roughly in order or importance.  The
HTML web pages may be "well structured" for graphic presentation and/or
"well structured" in a semantic sense.  (However, these two types of
"well structured" are often different.)

I'm not saying that non-blind people cannot get the blind version if
they want.  I'm sorry if I conveyed that.  Is it the terminology of what
to call this type of dynamically generated  web page?

I am not saying that the technology should be used only to generate web
pages dynamically for blind users.

I am not saying that all web sites must move to dynamically generated
web pages.

I am saying that if a web site is generating web pages dynamically, then
it probably has the capability of generating web pages in different
formats according to each user's preferences.  (Portals and search
engines are two examples of web sites generating web pages dynamically.)
Users will benefit from being able to choose from a range of formats
which could include a highly graphical format and a format much more
organized along semantic lines.

Dynamically generated web pages lets each user get the pages he or she
likes.  Why should blind users use the type of dynamically generated web
pages I prefer with lots of visual graphics?  Why should I use web pages
that will be easier for blind people to use but would be missing a rich
graphic structure I like?

The impression I got was that people who were posting thought that the
one size fits all is preferable.  While I agree that for non-dynamically
generated web pages a "one size" is probably necessary because of the
effort needed for multiple versions.  However, when there is the
opportunity provided by technocology which can easily generate web page
in one format or another, why not let each user get the type of format
they prefer instead of forcing them all into one size which may not be
to their liking?  If I can get the type of web page I prefer, why
should I be forced into a "standard" form which may not be as much to my
liking?  Do you disagree with this?  Would you insist that an organization
not have its dynamic web page technology deliver my personalized
web pages using rich grahic texture, visually stimulating layout
and much graphic cuing?

Scott

> Scott,
> 
> unless I explicitly say so I write my own personal opinions.
> 
> No, I am saying that it is stupid to write well-structured content for blind
> people and then deny that content to people who do not identify themselves as
> blind.
> 
> Yes, I am suggesting that technology which enables all users to get
> dynamically generated, well-structured content should not be used only to
> provide content for blind people, since this does not solve many of the range
> of accessibility problems out there and therefore is a relatively expensive
> use of resources. I think XML provides the technology to give all the users
> out there sensible, well structured content, and to provide tat only to
> people who identify themselves as blind is a siginificant mistake, and
> seriously short-sells the community of people who have dificulty in using the
> web as it is now due to disabilities of various kinds but happen not to be
> blind.
> 
> In more general terms I am suggesting that it makes more sense, if you are
> trying to provide access to all users, to produce a single set of content
> which is well designed, than to produce a number of different designs for
> different groups, for the reasons I and others have outlined in this thread.
> 
> Search engines and portals do not give the option of how to view websites,
> only the websites themselves or the client softwre do that at the moment.
> 
> Charles McCN

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 1999 15:25:18 UTC