RE: proposal to add the following to the guidelines introduction

Was trying to read this and I THINK it looks ok.  

 

As long as the default (no-content negotiation) form meets guidelines at the
claimed level, there can be as many other versions as desired.   They can go
beyond the claimed level.  They can be tuned to disabilities. Or they can be
inaccessible.   But the default version would need to meet (all) the
guidelines or a version that did would have to be available from that URI in
an accessible way (e.g. link at top of page). 

 

At least that is my read on the situation or requirements at this time.
Your text below could be read to align with this or could be read to not
align.  So I'm not quite sure of your intent. 

 

 

We should however capture all this in concise language and include it. 

 

Maybe something like

 

 

When a conformance claim is made for a URI where multiple versions of
content are available, the conformant version must be the default version at
that URI (the version that is delivered if no content negotiation takes
place) or the conformant version must be available from that URI in an
accessible way (such as a link at the top of the page).   The conformant
version must also provide all the information and functionality of any other
versions of the content available from that URI and be as up to date as
other versions of the content.  This provision does not limit the number of
other forms of the information that may be provided including versions that
are simpler and have less information or versions that are optimized for
particular audiences. 

 

 

Would this address your needs/ concerns?   

 

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Lisa Seeman
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:59 PM
To: W3c-Wai-Gl
Subject: proposal to add the following to the guidelines introduction

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 <http://www.ubaccess.com/>