Re: One site fits all?

Personally I don't see the difficulty.

There are a few things which could be done to make the whole thing work
better, but I can't find anything in the page which necessitates multiple
versions. Which is not to say that it is not possible to create multiple
versions for different purposes, just that it is a whole lot of extra work
and in most cases creating a single version which does it right for everyone
is the best option, helping to ensure that 'seperate but equal' does not
become 'out of sight, out of mind' and to keep the workload down for content
providers.

Charles McCN

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, William Loughborough wrote:

  The question of having separate (but equal <grin>) versions of Web
  postings is raised by Anne Pemberton (apembert@crosslink.net) in a
  recent post to Webwatch concerning the Chicago Tribune site at, e.g.: 
  
  http://chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/
  
  AP:: "I think this is an example of a page that cannot accommodate
  "everyone" with the same page. The more I learn about the accommodations
  desired by various communities including the disabled of all flavors,
  the more I am convinced that we will need several versions of pages to
  accommodate "everyone"..."
  
  When we work on various guidelines we strive mightily to disprove this
  notion and I feel it's in the same vein as the notion that Web
  appearance must be "dumbed down" to accommodate DPWs.  What say you all?
  -- 
  Love.
              ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
  http://dicomp.pair.com
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Received on Thursday, 29 April 1999 11:08:56 UTC