Re: Additional issue for alternate interfaces

Yes, this is the crucial key. (There was a discussion a few months ago on
this).

Charles

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  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
  

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 10:43:51 UTC