- From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:02:38 -0800
- To: charles@w3.org, phoenixl@sonic.net
- Cc: cyns@microsoft.com, kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi, I think there are basically three levels of approaches to providing different versions of web pages: low level - information is stored in primary version of web page and extracted as needed middle level - the source is self-contained and self-configuring and creates different versions of itself depending on desired characteristics high level - content is stored in something like XML or database and then transformed as needed The web site developer can choose depending on what skills and resources are available. Scott > On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Scott Luebking wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree that there probably won't be a universal solution which > consists of some combination of multiple versions of a web page > and some sets of transformations on certain versions of the > that web page. > > I think it is important to provide web page developers a variety of > approaches from which they can choose to provide accessibility > in accordance with the skills and resources they have available. > > CMN Well, it sounds like we are thinking on the same page then - this is what > I keep understanding from discussions in the working group. > > Scott > Rather than thinking in terms of a generic web page which could be be a > little misleading, I've been thinking more along the lines of a > "basic browser" version of web page. I believe it might be easier for > web page developers to work with. > > CMN Well, the "whatever-we-call-it-that-almost-anyone-can-use" version would > be one that implemented all (or all of a given level of) the relevant > checkpoints of WCAG. There is some push for people to be able to claim > conformance for a page based on the fact that there is an alternative version > which is accessible even if the particular page in question is not. I don't > see anything wrong with that, provided that it is possible to get to the > appropriate version, and the mechanism is clear and "available to everyone". > > I think where the discussion comes in is what kinds of techniques are OK for > making things available - if there is a fairly generic version and CC/PP to > autioomatically provide something else is that enough, or do there have to be > markers in the page content itself, or some other set of mechanisms? These > are questions to resolve in working on this, not necessarily something we > should expect to ansewr in the next week or so. > > Scott > Providing access to content in a database might be helpful, but I do > wonder how many users would take advantage of it. It is not clear to > me that the percentage of technologically daring people is significantly > greater in the disabled population than in the general population. > > CMN That was just an example, and as I suggested in my interpretation of the > Monash research I alluded to, I think the percentage of people wo will make > use of it would be low. But the benefit to that group of having it accessible > will be very high, just as the percentage of people who cannot see anything > is very low, but the benefit for those people of making things accessible is > very great. > > cheers > > Charles
Received on Tuesday, 1 January 2002 12:02:42 UTC