- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:10:27 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Well, there are two approaches. An example is that some users prefer well-animated content, and others prefer non-animated content. In some instances this can be decided by the users themselves - decent browsers allow the user to specify that they don't want content to be animated, or even that by default they don't want types of content that are likely to be animated. And the other approach, as Lisa pointed out (beating Kynn to the jump - hi Kynn <grin/>) is to serve different versions of the content for different users (It isn't just Reef doing this - big names include IBM, smaller ones include adaptive media, and most people who started marketing to mobile devices). The benefit of the first appraoch is that it is very simple for authors, but users have to do more configuration, and therefore need to know they can, and how. chaals On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Jason White wrote: Lisa Seeman writes: > You can get a baseline of accessibility on a page that is adequate for > everyone, But if you want state of the art accessibility then: > Users and users needs conflict - fact In what circumstances? Examples would probably help to clarify the issue. > Suggested solution: Alternative renderings Author-supplied, generated by user agents, or each as appropriate? -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 09:10:33 UTC