- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 06:56:35 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Something which I don't think we are explicit about -- perhaps it belongs in the server-side techniques document -- is the idea that: When providing alternate interfaces to web content or applications, there must be an interface option which is designed in accordance with universal accessibility principles. Note that this is all very vague, and comes into issues of conformance. We have no good guide for conformance of alternate, generated interfaces at present anyway, but setting that aside, the question is: How "accessible" (and to whom) must the "most accessible" version be? (We've said before that there must be a way to switch to it, so I am not concerned with the idea that this _must_ be the "default" version, although I think it's a good idea for this to be the case.) The reason for this proposal is to prevent "falling through the gaps" -- a more dangerous case than "separate but equal" fears -- as there will likely be some user groups for whom no optimized interface has been created. Those users must still have access to the site, and this should be in accordance with the general guidelines for universal (single-interface) accessibility. --Kynn -- -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 09:59:38 UTC