Re: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE: issue with Guideline 4.2 )

Lisa,

  This is a good technique, but only if the target technology 
can actually support the functionality of the new technology. 

Loretta

----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 11:12 am
Subject: Re: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE: issue 
with Guideline 4.2 )

> The result of the transcoding option is that people can 
pioneer new
> accessibility techniques and technologies without being 
stopped by 
> backward compatibility and adoption issues.
> 
> So asking in asking  adoption we are just asking for a 
serverside 
> interim solution.
> 
> 
> Keep well
> Lisa
> 
> 
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Gregg Vanderheiden
>  To: 'Lisa Seeman' ; 'Yvette P. Hoitink' ; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>  Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 8:16 PM
>  Subject: RE: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE: 
issue with
> Guideline 4.2 )
> 
> 
>  Thanks Lisa
> 
> 
> 
>      This is good to note.   If invokable by users - then these 
> serversbecome user agents and there would be user agents 
that support.
> 
> 
> 
>  If invoked by web sites themselves, they become part of 
what the 
> websiteis serving so their effect is included in the 'delivery 
unit'.
> 
> 
> 
>  So these server techniques can be used two ways to solve 
the 
> problem.
> 
> 
>  The problem then comes down to when there are no 
transcoding 
> servers to
> change the technology into accessible technology
> 
>  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Gregg
> 
>   -- ------------------------------ 
>  Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>  Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>  Director - Trace R & D Center
>  University of Wisconsin-Madison
> 
> 
> 
----------------------------------------------------
----------------
> --------
> --
> 
>  From: Lisa Seeman [lisa@ubaccess.com]
>  Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 7:01 AM
>  To: Gregg Vanderheiden; 'Yvette P. Hoitink'; w3c-wai-
gl@w3.org
>  Subject: Re: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE: 
issue with
> Guideline 4.2 )
> 
> 
> 
>  >   - do we really want to say that something is accessible 
if it 
> cannotbe
>  >used by people with disabilities -- but theoretically could 
if 
> someday  > someone made a tool that allowed it?
> 
>  My 2 cents...
> 
>  When I started using RDF  (resources description 
framework) 
> techniques to
> enhance accessibility we had the same problem. It was clear 
that this
> technology we could do much much more for different 
disability related
> scenarios that using standard HTML techniques. However, if 
we 
> weighted for
> user agent support it would never happen. They will only 
support that
> authors are doing, and authors will only use the techniques 
that 
> work with
> Assistive Technologies (AT). Catch 22 as they say - the one 
can not 
> hapenwithout the other.
> 
> 
> 
>  We got over the "chicken and egg" senario by adding a 
serversisde
> transcoding/ middlewear service at the same time. We 
chose a few 
> user cases
> or "prepackaged" scenarios (general accessibility, page map 
visual
> rendering/ enhanced navigation etc..) we then  applied the 
RDF to make
> transcoded versions of the same content accessible and 
optimized  
> to the
> different scenarios or user cases -but using HTML so it 
workes with 
> currentAssistive Technologies.
> 
> 
> 
>  We hope more assistive technologies will support RDF 
directly. 
> However, in
> the mean time, if anyone wanted to use RDF to enhance 
> accessibility, they
> can use the serverside (free) service, and get it working 
today.
> 
> 
> 
>  The same technique can be other platforms -if they want 
to they can
> provide sever side accessibility services until "AT" catches 
up and 
> directlysupports their accessibility features.
> 
> 
> 
>  What does need to be tolerated is to allow different 
versions, 
> based on
> the same source document so long as you can easily reach 
the one 
> versionfrom the other.
> 
> 
> 
>  Keep well
> 
>  L
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Yvette wrote:
> 
> 
>  <snip>
>  I would like to go even further and propose to delete the 
entire 
> success  criteria that there must be at least one  UAAG-
compliant 
> user agent for
> the
>  chosen technology.
> 
>  I strongly think WCAG 2 should embrace new technologies. 
> Technology and
>  accessible user agents are a chicken-and-egg thing. If we 
require 
> to use
>  only technologies for which UAAG *-compliant user agents 
exist, 
> you can't
>  use a new technology that doesn't already have accessible 
UA's. 
> That means
>  that only people who do not care about accessibility use 
that new
> technology
>  and the accessibility features are never used, to the 
> manufacturers don't
>  see the need to support those features. This leaves a lot of 
> people in the
>  cold.
> 
>  If, on the other hand, we say you can write your content on 
the 
> (initially  false) assumption that there is a user agent that is 
> UAAG *-compliant,
>  people will use the accessibility features of the technology 
and
>  manufacturers will see the need to support the accessibility 
> features.
>  We have seen with WCAG 1 and Flash what can happen if 
we set a 
> high bar on
>  new technologies. Some of my own clients decided not to 
make 
> parts of
> their
>  website accessible because they really wanted to use the 
> capabilities of
>  Flash and did not have the resources to make an equivalent 
> accessible  alternative as well. They didn't use the 
accessibility 
> features of Flash
>  because that would cost extra work and they thought that 
wouldn't 
> help  accessibility because they still would not conform to 
the 
> minimum level of
>  WCAG 1. This means that even now that Flash plug-ins 
support 
> accessibility  features, their Flash content is still 
inaccessible. 
> I really want to
> avoid
>  this situation in WCAG 2.
> 
>  A simple fact of life is that organizations WILL use new 
> technologies  (unless forced by legislation). Instead of 
forbidding 
> that, let's tell
> them
>  how to use the technologies in an accessible manner so 
more 
> people will
> have
>  access to that content in the long run!
> 
>  Yvette Hoitink
>  Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
>  E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
>  WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:39:31 UTC