- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:50:31 -0500 (EST)
- To: phoenixl <phoenixl@sonic.net>
- cc: <gian@stanleymilford.com.au>, <Lee.Otto@aspect.com.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I am sure that there are a number of "reasonably obvious" functionality groupings. I assume that the first thing we will see is the "reasonably obvious" ones catered for, and later we will see more adaptive systems designed to better provide for the needs of a wide range of people. There is old technology available to do this. The real question in my mind is how to make sure that people are getting a version they can use, and then how to make sure they can get the version that is best for them to use. Cheers Charles McCN On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, phoenixl wrote: Hi, I'm not sure I would agree with this analysis. I think there are some inherent groupings of functionality. For example, in general, the major group of people which is affected by tables for layout is pretty much the same group affected by javascript. Scott > Hi, > I think Lee is right, and one major problem with having multiple > versions of a web page is that we can NEVER know the variety of > disabilities a person may have, and therefore splitting an accessible > web site into several sites can end up making that site essentially > inaccessible. What I mean, is that if someone needs checkpoints A and B > to access a site will not be able to do so if checkpoint A is solved by > Site Version 1, and checkpoint B by Site Version 3. > Cheers, > Gian -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 08:50:44 UTC