Re: universality

I think Kynn has clearly identifed what could be a good path for solving
these problems, and equally clearly identifed the largest obstacle to success
using that path.

Charles McCN

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  I agree with this except for one caveat -- the accessibility of the
  -content- is primary, and not necessarily of each page; thus there
  may be cases in which dividing the world into different groups -on
  the same site- may work best, if you have users with special needs
  that can't be adequately met by the single-source method and graceful
  degradation.
  
  When dealing with users with different needs and those with multiple
  needs, there are some cases in which it might indeed be good to
  say "this is a type of presentation that -best benefits users who
  are blind-" or "this is how you can make a site more accessible
  -for users who have learning disabilities-".  Many of these
  techniques may prove to be very powerful and useful, and with
  evolving technologies that enable server-side transformations of
  the user experience, we can't just discard a solution that works
  for one audience because it doesn't fit in our model of "single
  source universal design."
  
  Jonathan's various demonstrations are good examples of this.  Most
  all of what he's presented as possible (partial?) solutions for
  users with cognitive impairments are highly inaccessible to users
  who are visually impaired.  However, if we consider the option of
  delivering custom, personalized user interfaces, then we find a
  way to use some of the suggestions made here that aren't compatible
  with single source design.  Jonathan's idea works for learning
  disabled users but not for people without vision?  Great!  We'll
  add it to our toolbox called "optimizing sites for people with
  learning disabilities" and not our toolbox called "optimizing
  sites for people who are blind."
  
  --Kynn
  
  PS:  The catch, of course, is to do this selection/optimization
        in an accurate, inclusive, and "correct" way.  And that's not
        easy to do reliably -- it takes a lot of work and a lot of
        understanding of the issues, not to mention employing various
        protocols and technologies that have rarely been tied together
        in this way.  By the way -- this is what we're working on
        at Edapta.

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 17:15:44 UTC