- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:59:04 +0200
- To: W3c-Wai-Gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-id: <ABEAIGDDLALMIBFJDPGDMEOFCAAA.lisa@ubaccess.com>
HI We discussed on the call that providing a simplified version/ rendering of the site will not brake any guidelines such as thoughs requiring consistency between delivery units - even though, clearly, this will result in a different interface. I think (And I admit to being biased in this area) that we need to be very clear that this is Ok. Further, in the techniques we are being biased towards what assistive technology vendors for the vision impaired support today. This has an obvious cost of discouraging the use and evolution of new techniques and protocols The reason I said I was biased is, in part, because of the DHTML techniques that we are working on in the PF group in the WAI. This also involves RDF and is some what entrepreneurial. Also the technology we have been developing at UB (SWAP) is based on RDF and making content adaptable, both for traditional accessibility needs and learning disabilities and different learning styles. The compromise we are making at UB for traditional support is via middleware, IE server generated real time generation of traditionally accessible pages, even though our base pages use any html/xml and RDF. This means (and this is the important bit) That traditional support of accessibility is provided and all content is provided in a form that complies with HTML techniques. It does not mean that all renderings of the same content complies with all HTML techniques. It is adaptive - that is the point. You can switch it off and on, add to it ect. - create a tailored user experience. Note this would make almost any level 3 requirement appropriate for any site As I have said before, I have been developing this and am therefore biased. However I believe that the development of such platforms is good for the future/ next generation of accessibility. However I think that some people may avoided such techniques because you can not say all options of pages comply with all techniques. Further, we are promoting conformance with techniques as to what is supported today, and this could mean that evolution of new better techniques are stifaled. I hence proposes that add the following to the guidelines introduction When multiple renderings options of content exists. These guidelines can be conformed to by providing a version of content that conforms to these guidelines. The conformant version of content must be generate either in real time or after any nonconforming content has been generated. All content and functionality provided must be available in an accessible form, however, simplified renderings used to conform to level three requirements relating to understandability may have reduced content and functionality. All the best Lisa Seeman www.ubaccess.com
Received on Monday, 31 October 2005 00:01:46 UTC