- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:12:59 -0500 (EST)
- To: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
This seems like a pretty sound approach in general. However I am not sure that having preference settings like "upper arm disability" is going to be as well received as having the resulting features be what the user selects on - fast navigation, no images, or whatever. Charles Munat has also worked on this approach a fair bit, but doing browser sniffing to determine whether to include thins like accesskeys (based on the idea that if the browser doesn't handle them they are a wase of bandwidth). As I understand it, CC/PP does not deal specifically with disabilities, but instead with functional requirements/limitations. Another area this is being used is with system atributes in SMIL and SVG. Cheers Charles McCN On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Scott Luebking wrote: Hi, In a previous posting, Wendy asked me to look at CC/PP amd see if it is in sync with my ideas. Before going into that discussion, I thought it might be helpful to talk a little about attributes/preferences and software architecture. An arrangement that I've found helpful in software architecture is to provide for external attributes/preferences and internal attributes/preferences. The external attributes/preferences are known outside of the program while internal attributes/preferences are known only inside of the program. There are several advantages to this arrangement. One is that the names used for the external attributes/preferences can be renamed, aliased, etc and the internal attributes/preferences can be left the same. Only the mapping of the external attributes/preferences to internal attributes/preferences need be changes. This arrangement also allows for external attributes/preferences to be specified from different sources using names relevant to the source without needing to change the internal attributes/preferences. In this arrangement, values from CC/PP would be seen as external attributes/preferences from the CC/PP source. Also, a web page could be provided for specifying user preferences using attributes/preferences which need not have the same names as CC/PP. The names would be more relevant to the purpose of the web page where the names from CC/PP would be more generic. Assuming that a web site provides an ability to store a user's preferences from a previous visit, a user preference page and the handling for CC/PP, the following steps would probably occur when a user visits the web site: 1. set internal attributes/preferences from defaults 2. set internal attributes/preferences from stored user preferences 3. query user agent for CC/PP information 4.a. if no CC/PP information is returned, display a greeting web page with a link to user preferences web page which has a list of external attributes/preferences relevant to the web site 4.b. if CC/PP information is returned, set the internal attributes/preferences from the external attributes/preferences provided by the CC/PP. then display a greeting web page with a link to user preferences web page which has a list of external attributes/preferences relevant to the web site. (This web page will let a user over-ride values provided by CC/PP as might be needed for the particular session. It is also highly useful for debugging.) In this organization, CC/PP should identify major classes of disability, e.g. "blind", "upper arm limitations". The application would then translate these external attributes/preferences into possible internal attributes/preferences like "use simple format" or "include fast section navigation". (Ideally, the user preference web page would allow the user to turn off all features relevant to a disability or let the user pick and choose which disability features to include.) As near as I can tell, CC/PP isn't providing information about a person's disability. Scott -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011, Australia
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2000 18:13:09 UTC