- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:56:03 -0500
- To: "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Dear Kynn, I think your question, and interpretation, is fair. I always thought that the WCAG 1.0 said that alternative interfaces were a last resort, and I thought it was good and appropriate that it did so! Do keep in mind what was going on at the time of the WCAG 1.0. Far too many sites were posting "text only" versions in attempts to be accessible, and there was the strong belief that this was the right approach (and perhaps the only way) to do things. We are, of course, still fighting that myth. My impression is that things are a little better on that front. Do others agree with this observation? Are we winning the battle in debunking the need for "text only" pages? Are "text only" approaches still a major obstacle to equivalent access? Does the WCAG 2.0 need to be as dogmatic about this issues as was 1.0? -- Bruce > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 3:02 PM > To: William Loughborough > Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: Does WCAG 1.0 say alternate interfaces are a "last resort"? > > > At 12:03 PM 11/2/2000 , William Loughborough wrote: > > Your "...the absurd WCAG 1.0 statement that alternate > > interfaces are a 'last resort'." is not even remotely close > > to what the guideline actually says, which is "...Where it is > > not possible to use a W3C technology, or doing so results in > > material that does not transform gracefully, provide an > > alternative version of the content that is accessible." Now, I > > don't mean this very pejoratively but to use your phrase in > > this connection is demagoguery. It may be that many of us > > interpret this to mean it's a "last resort" but that's not > > justification for calling it a WCAG "statement". > > Here is one WCAG statement: > > If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, > provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, > is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and > is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. > > This is checkpoint 11.4 in WCAG 1.0. The "after best efforts" > phrase is a link, to this text which immediately follows 11.4: > > Note. Content developers should only resort to alternative pages > when other solutions fail because alternative pages are generally > updated less often than "primary" pages. An out-of-date page may > be as frustrating as one that is inaccessible since, in both cases, > the information presented on the original page is unavailable. > Automatically generating alternative pages may lead to more > frequent updates, but content developers must still be careful to > ensure that generated pages always make sense, and that users are > able to navigate a site by following links on primary pages, > alternative pages, or both. Before resorting to an alternative > page, reconsider the design of the original page; making it > accessible is likely to improve it for all users. > > > I maintain that it is pretty clear that WCAG 1.0 considers a > single-interface approach to be superior to multiple interfaces, > and the guideline is written exactly to suggest that using > multiple interfaces should be done as a "last resort" and not > as a first solution. Note the use of "only resort...when other > solutions fail..."; note the use of "before resorting." > > I find it very hard to believe that we are looking at the same > version of WCAG 1.0 if you are claiming that it does not > suggest alternate interfaces as a "last resort." > > --Kynn > > -- > 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 Friday, 3 November 2000 08:56:39 UTC