RE: A "one size fits all" personalized web page?

Hi,

My comment that "we have pretty much set that aside" referred to the concept
of "one size fits all", not to the concept and emerging principles of UDL.
CAST is a leading proponent of Universal Design for Learning and I feel that
it is highly compatible with the work of WAI.  Perhaps my rushed email was
unclear.  The sentence from my original email responding to Scott and Marja
follows:

"One size fits all" seems desirable to some but we have pretty much set that
idea aside since it seems to imply fixed, inflexible and not quite right for
anyone.

Chuck

======

CH:: "we have pretty much set that idea aside since it seems to imply
fixed, inflexible and not quite right for anyone."

WL: The operative words therein are (IMHO) "we" and "seems". The "we" is
probably mostly about the folks at CAST; the reached decision to set
aside the idea(l) of UDL is not (at least so far) shared by many of us
at WAI AUWG, particularly Charles, Jason, Gregory, and this old person.
The "seems to imply" *may* carry the delusion we all suffer that often
things just aren't what they seem to be. Whether it turns out that some
of us's abhorrence of what we perceive as the "ghettoization" of
text-only (and other "personalized" at the server end) Web sites is a
misplaced sense of idealism (everyone, everything connected is, after
all, a bit much!) or that "UDL requires..." is in fact unnecessarily
dogmatic, won't have much bearing on how this all turns out, but on the
whole I would hate to ignore the implications of "separate but equal" in
our context. If anybody understands what I'm talking about, please let
me know. I love Scott's and Chuck's goals but I feel pretty strongly
that the ideals envisioned in WCAG and ATAG are achievable and
*important*. Anybody (dis)agree???
--
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com

Received on Wednesday, 29 December 1999 22:16:23 UTC