- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:53:52 -0700
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:01 PM 10/28/2000 , Jason White wrote: >Another reason for ensuring that the data model, as opposed to the final >interface, is available for processing by software under the user's >control is that given Len's groups of users (with different needs, >different devices, preferences etc., namely {U1, U2, U3 ... Un} we know >empirically that n, even if we could agree upon a means of quantifying it, >is very large. Actually the ability to provide the data model is just one technique and it may not always be the best technique. The average user, when given an raw XML file (for example) will often prove unable to decipher it and the responsibility will be placed wrongly on the user agent in many cases. (Note, by the way, that "ability to understand and process arbitrary data" is one of the qualities that would be communicated by an intelligent user agent using CC/PP to a server, and could be part of the decision process. If you _know_ this, then it's fine to send arbitrary data when faced with an unknown user agent. If you _don't_ know this, then a compromise solution often should be sent, not raw data.) > By contrast, if the author provides high-level abstractions which can be >transformed, by software operating under the user's control, into a >multiplicity of distinct interfaces, then a potentially large set of >interfaces can be generated automatically, thereby satisfying the needs >and preferences of many, but perhaps not all, members of U. Does software such as this exist? If not then it makes a bad fallback mechanism. In general, servers should never be sending raw data unless they believe that the user agent _will_ be able to process the information. If they believe this to be the case, then yes, it's a good idea to send XML + Schema, but absent that information, it's irresponsible to consider a structured data model as "accessible" in any sense of the word. I hope I understand what you're saying here -- I admit that your pseudo-mathematics have a tendency to lose me. I feel as if we are not using the clearest language possible in this discussion. -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Director of Accessibility, Edapta http://www.edapta.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/ What's on my bookshelf? http://kynn.com/books/
Received on Saturday, 28 October 2000 23:21:00 UTC