RE: Multiple versions of a page

This probably already is included in the second point of your agenda, but I 
would add to the list as a reminder that we should also examine the use of 
good techniques for storing and updating the content and keeping track 
which data is related so that it becomes less easy to update content in one 
version and forget to update it in another. For instance, the content 
should be taken from the same source whenever possible for all the versions 
and CSS and different transformations e.g. table linearizer may be used to 
modify the presentation and interaction if needed. Furthermore, if sound 
track is replaced the designer should be warned to check the accuracy of 
related captions and if an image is replaced the designer is given the 
places referring to it in the main text body that should be checked. In 
these cases the user writing the document has defined (hopefully with a 
good tool) which caption is related to which soundtrack or which places in 
the text explain the image.

Always providing one version where the maximum amount of interaction 
flexibility (for all disabilities) is available is probably a good idea. 
The user can then optimize it himself or herself with some fine tuning as 
users do right now. The other versions mainly provide selected user groups 
an easy, ready made optimization.

Marja

  At 04:44 PM 3/23/2002 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>If this thread is to make any further progress, someone needs to write
>a proposal related to the guidelines. Here is what we know so far:
>
>1. Server-side techniques are already being worked on. Those who are
>    interested, but not already involved, should contact Wendy Chisholm
>    <wendy@w3.org> to coordinate.
>
>2. It is agreed by everyone involved that server-side techniques will
>    have an impact upon the nature of our conformance scheme, most
>    significantly in determining how content for which multiple
>    versions exist can satisfy the guidelines and how a conformance
>    claim should be scoped to ensure that the information it provides
>    regarding the accessibility of the content is useful and accurate.
>
>Does anybody want to write a proposal in relation to either or both of
>these issues? Are there any other issues in this area that ought to be
>discussed? If so, how do they affect the guidelines?

Received on Sunday, 24 March 2002 09:03:06 UTC