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

aloha, scott!

the argument isn't over content, it's over presentation...  you can have a
database driven site that creates what to the user appears to be straight HTML,
XHTML, or XML in an unlimited range of presentational options (provided, of
course, you can actually find a browser with full support for stylesheets),
thereby endowing the individual user with the ability to choose (or create) the
presentational mode that is most suitable for that individual in whatever
situation that individual happens to find his or her self at any particular
time in any particular place... 

i don't think that any of us who have been discussing this issue with you
support a "one size fits all" approach -- as a matter of fact, i know for a
fact that i, jason, bill, marja, chuck, and charles are adamantly opposed to
such an approach...  what we have been arguing against is the imposition of a
one size fits all solution to tailoring the presentation of content to a user
based upon a profile as generic as "blind", "low vision", "deaf blind", etc....

it is nearly as indiscriminate a way to tailor content as is browser sniffing
based on a Mozilla declaration...

you are correct, though, scott, in bringing up a subject close to al gilman and
len kasday's hearts -- the necessity of encouraging authors to use semantically
sensible class, file, and object names, so that semantic information can be
gleaned from even the most conservatively coded pages...

i wish you and everyone else on list a happy, healthy, and semantically
sensible new century!
        gregory.


At 07:34 PM 12/29/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi, Charles
>
>Read through the pages on the Semantic Web.  Why is the Semantic Web needed?
>
>I believe you might be confusing strings of text with semantic information.
>They are not the same.
>
>For example, suppose that a web page is about Chicago.  Let's say that among
>links there are:
>
>    <A src="#chicago_cows.html"> Chicago Cows </A>
>    <A src="#chicago_bulls.html"> Chicago Bulls </A>
>
>The strings of text are "Chicago Cows" and "Chicago Bulls".  Now, suppose that
>the web page user wants the links related to sports to be at the top of
>the page.  If a user wanted his user agent to put the links related to
>sports at the beginning of the page, how would the user agent know whether
>the "Chicago Bulls" link or the "Chicago Cows" links are related to sports?
>The semantic information is lost when the HTML is created.
>
>For a personalized web page, information about the category of each link
>can be stored in a database.  The links can be ordered according to
>whether the link is sports related or not and then the HTML is created.
>
>
>Are you objecting to personalized web pages?  Are you saying that it is a poor
>solution for meeting user needs?
>
>What is your definition of "badly designed"?  I believe a beautifully
>graphic personalized web page can be a good design for a large number of
>users.  Why should a personalized web page have to accomodate all
>users?  The more important issue is that each user gets the information
>he wants in the format most easy for him to use.  I think that what
>Chuck posted from the CAST web site really makes a lot of sense.
>
>Scott
>
>
>> Scott,
>> 
>> Can you please provide a reference to Tim's statement to which you keep
>> referring. It seems to me that the statement is not really correct, at least
>> in the context here. It is possible to extract sematic inormation from
>> properly-coded HTML, since it contains almost nothing but semantic
>> information.
>> 
>> I think you are misunderstanding my point about the web, which is that it is
>> not a good solution to meet one group of user's needs by providing a
differnt
>> presentation and at the same time ignoring the needs of most users. There is
>> less conflict in user needs than you seem to be making out. The conflict is
>> between user needs and designers who are suficiently obdurate to ignore them
>> for the sake of what they think is visually appealing, which is another
>> matter entirely.
>> 
>> I am not arguing against pages that can be presented according to user
>> preferences, I am simply arguing that the approach which says it is alright
>> to have a page that is badly designed and then have an alternative page for
>> some people is not a good approach, and saying itis preferable is to say
that
>> it is a good idea to keep something which prevents or reduces access. In
>> particular where there is a provsion for one group of disabled users biut
>> others are then comletely ignored, it does not seem to even be an effective
>> approach to accessibility.
>> 
>> Cheers
>

--------------------------------------------------------
He that lives on Hope, dies farting
     -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1763
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
   WebMaster and Minister of Propaganda, VICUG NYC
        <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html>
--------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 30 December 1999 01:20:31 UTC