Re: Illustrating Guidelines

Hi, Gregory

Just checking.  A couple of weeks ago I was in a meeting where the
people want to do individualized web pages, but the argument which was
presented was that the WAI guidelines do not support that design
approach.  Also, various disability leaders are pushing the "one size
fits all" approach.

I believe the cookie-cutter approach is probably fine if there is a way
to do additional tuning.  From what I heard at CSUN, there is additional
"implementation" aspect of accepting proposed WAI standards.  I think
that usability testing of user action would fit into that.  I believe
that many users would prefer the cookie-cutter approach as a first
approximation since it requires fewer decisions on their part.  There
has been some recent research on user choice that when given too many
choices to make, users will back away.

A project I've recently been working on is self-configuring web pages.
The underlying model includes being able to looking at web pages as
being "rubberized" where they can be stretched or pressed in various
places as needed for purpose.  The functionality and access to content
can depend on user preferences.

Scott

> aloha, scott!
> 
> you wrote:
> Does universal design require one web page for all or the ability to specify
> how the user wants the web page?
> unquote
> 
> in my "view", the latter -- the former is merely one technique for
> accomplishing the latter...  of course, my answer is also predicated on (a)
> the ability of the user to specify precisely what he or she wants, and not
> the application of a cookie-cutter profile (e.g. blind, deaf, low vision,
> head-pointer, voice input, etc.) and (b) equivalency of function and
> equivalent access to content in all individually served pages (a scenario in
> which a portion of the onus is shifted from the page author, and onto the
> shoulders of those constructing and populating the database from which the
> individually served pages are drawn)
> 
> gregory.

Received on Sunday, 13 May 2001 19:59:00 UTC