RE: My Action Item: Multiple interface guideline

I'm not convinced that it should be a goal for each version to be broadly
accessible.   I see tailoring UI to the specific needs of the user as a
potential way to create interfaces that are far more accessible to any given
individual than a one-size-fits all approach could ever be.  As long as the
sum of the versions is accessible, then I think the content can be
considered accessible.  It makes sense to require that one version be
broadly accessible (maybe even AAA) to cover any cases the author didn't
think of, and that it's easy to get to that version.

I expect this to be controversial, so I'll duck now :-)

Cynthia

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 7:51 AM
To: Kynn Bartlett
Cc: 'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'
Subject: Re: My Action Item: Multiple interface guideline


The truth lies somewhere in between for the real world, I think. As people
have said in this discussion, it is critical that the method for getting the
version that you can use is accessible - P1 that it is level-A accessible in
the current terminology, and I would argue P2 that it is double-A, P3 that
it
is triple-A, using the relative priority that exists in ATAG.

I don't think it is P1 that each alternative version of content be level-A
accessible. I think it is P1 that the collection of alternatives (and as
said
above the method for choosing which of a collection a user atually gets) is
level-A.

I think it is at least P3 that each piece be broadly accessible - i.e. that
it meet level-A or double-A on its own, without relying on its
alternatives. In some cases that is not currently possible - some formats
are
simply not able to achieve that on their own. But it is generally superior.
I
am wondering about an argument that it is P2 - i.e. important for
accessibility of the overall content - what do people think?

Charles McCN

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 5:18 AM -0700 10/13/00, William Loughborough wrote:
  >I wonder if in the explanation it could somehow be emphasized that 
  >this technique must not serve as a copout for failure to provide 
  >conformance in the provided versions? One problem with "separate but 
  >equal" is that you tend to get a whole lot of separate and not 
  >enough equal. "Oh, I provided a text description so I didn't think 
  >it necessary to make the xxx (Flash, SVG, whatever) version conform 
  >to the guidelines.
  
  Uh, part of the whole point of doing server-side multiple interfaces
  is that the different pages don't _have_ to be held to the same
  standard of accessibility.
  
  For example, if I were making a page that was intended solely for
  a screenreader, I would produce a structured textual page without
  graphics -- save for the one graphic to allow change back to a
  "base" state which has been held to a higher standard of
  accessibility.
  
  A purely textual page obviously -- as Jonathan and Anne would tell
  us -- violates the needs of people who rely upon graphics.  And yet,
  for the specific audience who had selected this interface, it _is_
  accessible (remember, accessibility does not exist in a vacuum,
  you can only be accessible or inaccessible _by a person_).
  
  The one graphic is there because the mechanism needed to "change
  back" is required by the proposed guideline (as articulated well
  by Cynthia).
  
  A parallel solution would indeed be the Flash version.  I can
  deliver a near-pure Flash interface to site users who desire or
  who can use it, and I don't -have- to hold it to the same standard
  of general accessibility as a single-interface page.  However, the
  mechanism to switch back (the same graphic, with -- of course --
  appropriate ALT text, etc.) must be made accessible so someone who
  wanders onto this page with a screenreader has a way out.
  
  There is no concept of "separate but equal" or "whole lot of
  separate and not enough equal" involved here.  You are misapplying
  social rhetoric and trying to force technology to bend to simplistic
  dogma.
  
  As long as the _content_ is accessible to as broad an audience as
  possible, there is no need to require that every single interface
  be equally accessible to everyone -- only that the mechanism for
  selecting an appropriate interface be of the highest level of
  accessibility.  This is not a "separate but equal" case, and I think
  it is _very_ dangerous to try to apply pithy slogans in ways which
  they were never intended to be used.
  
  --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 20:49:38 UTC