RE: Editorial Survey #1 is up

Oh, they would be indexed, just as the link in the mark up is; but only if the page is found, and popular enough to register in the ranking.

For example, in the CNN case there is a link to the JPG in the page that refers to it, and that page is out there on the web; but it's not being picked up by any of the search engines. The content of that page doesn't matter if no one can find it.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Corporate Accessibility Group
Microsoft
Phone:
  mob +44 7977 455002
  office +44 117 9719730


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: 15 May 2007 20:35
To: Sean Hayes; 'Bailey Bruce'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Editorial Survey #1 is up

Why wouldn't words on the page be indexed?


The phrase on the page could be either

"This is an alternate version for foo.blat"
Or "foo.blat is an alternate version for this."

Both should be found in a word search of  "alternate version" and
"foo.blat".  No?

(by the way - in both of the above foo.blat is the non-conformant page. The
second one is for those who want to have the conformant page be the
'original' and the non-conformant page the "alternate version". )

Gregg
 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sean Hayes
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:34 PM
> To: Bailey Bruce; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Editorial Survey #1 is up
>
>
> My CNN example was a case where a) the accessible host page
> was available which contained the description b) the CNN site
> search could not find the document, and c) it was not found
> by any of the top 3 internet searches.
>
> I don't think adding "this is an accessible version of
> foo.blat" in a document is necessarily going to be search
> indexed any more reliably than having the link in the markup.
> I have no objection in including it as a potential technique,
> but I have grave doubts about calling it sufficient.
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Corporate Accessibility Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
>   mob +44 7977 455002
>   office +44 117 9719730
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bailey Bruce
> Sent: 15 May 2007 18:19
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Editorial Survey #1 is up
>
>
> I think maybe we should split the draft search technique from
> the draft URI hacking technique?  That way we can discuss
> them separately.
>
> > One problem is that the user may not be able to tell what site an
> "opaque" URI is part of, hence how to find the site-specific
> search engine.
>
> Anyone have examples of this?
>
> The only examples in my memory were hosted at location with
> numerical (IP address) URI, and those documents did not have
> alternative versions.
>
> But okay, so maybe that is a conformance failure?  Or at
> least they could not claim a success based on URI hacking.
> Or we could build in a requirement for transparent access to
> the site search feature.
>
> > it may be necessary to fall back on a generic search engine.
>
> Is anyone supporting reliance on generic search engine
> behavior as a way to pass WCAG 2.0 conformance claim
> checkpoint #4?  I certainly am not!
>
> I have only been using generic search engine to demonstrate
> how accessible versions (or index pages) *can* be turned up
> from the file name or document title.
>
> If a site were to base WCAG 2.0 conformance on the behavior
> of a third party search engine, then yes, that is fragile,
> and they are holding themselves hostage to changing behavior
> of the party search engine.  I still do not understand how
> this is a problem.
>
> I am still hoping for two or more examples of sites (that
> have accessible versions) where the accessible versions
> cannot be turned up from the corresponding inaccessible
> versions.  Should I throw this request over the wall to the
> WAI-IG?  They are low traffic nowadays too.
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2007 19:39:55 UTC