- From: Steven McCaffrey <SMCCAFFR@MAIL.NYSED.GOV>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:52:33 -0500
- To: <phoenixl@sonic.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi
Looking at the further discussion, I have some revised thoughts.
Speaking for myself only, the ends are more important than the means.
Therefore, from my pperspective, if the means to provide increased accessibility (and usability) to a wider range of users is by creating multiple versions (at the site or page or page element level) on the fly, then
that is perfectly fine. It's hard to say, in the general case, if there is such a thing, how practical this is.
As long as
1. equivalent information is provided via all the different versions
and
2. all the versions are kept equally up to date,
then the end is achieved.
The phrase "universal design" to me simply means to take different groups into account. It seems to me that both Scott's design outline and that expressed in WCAG are both
"universal design" and the differences is at
the implementation of the design. I hope I'm not muddling up the distinction, I'm just trying to see where precisely we disagree, if we really do disagree.
For example, Scott's step 4
4. for each group of users, identify approaches which can be
used by users in the group to meet their needs given their
characteristics. (here's where the creativity in pushing bounds
and coming up with original solutions can come into play)
iterates over "groups of users" whereas that expressed in WCAG seems to iterate over something like "information chunk" which mostly corresponds to "page element" as opposed to entire page or site.
(e.g. For each element, provide an equivalent...)
Could this difference in the early design phase account for the difference? Am I making any sense?
Steve
>>> Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net> 12/16/01 11:01AM >>>
Hi,
Looking at the consensus item:
RE: CLIENT SIDE AND SERVER SIDE SOLUTIONS
S1 - serving content in different forms is an acceptable way to comply
with the guidelines as long as equivalents for all of the information
are provided in the different forms and it is all available through the
same URI (though it may be linked to it) (server side solutions are
acceptable - as specified)
it seems that providing multiple versions of web pages is acceptable.
It doesn't seem to convey the impression of the approach being a "cop out".
It does seem to indicate that using multiple versions of web pages is an
adequate design.
There was the statement:
"You keep saying that this is in the consensus appendix but as I
explained before, you have to look at the first and last lines of that
excerpt to fully appreciate its impact."
Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by the first and last
lines.
Multiple versions of web pages avoid the problems of having to choose
whose needs to serve when there are conflicting needs. With the
increase in bandwidth and computing power, more visual and interactive
technology will be delivered. There will be an increase in conflict of
needs. For example, in terms of limited screen real estate,
the space could be used to provide some accessibility feature or some
feature which will be used by the more general public.
Scott
> Now that we all understand each other, I have some comments in your
> message below marked with dp:
> look for designing a more accessible web on trace.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 2:52 PM
> Subject: Re: FWD: CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The phrase "multiple serve" is not very clear since there are a number
> of interpretations depending on various aspects.
> dp: I would not use that in many contexts but we know what we are
> talking about here and I have explained it.
>
> While some people consider multiple versions of a web page to be a cop
> out,
> other people consider it to be a reasonable use of technology to
> accomodate the needs of varying types of users. Since the text that
> I've quoted before is a consensus item, it would seem that the
> guidelines
> group see providing multiple versions of the same page as a reasonable
> use to technology in addressing the needs of a variety of people.
> dp: let's stick to exact quotes please. I did say that it is often and
> most often at that used as a cop out for not providing adaquate design
> in the first place.
>
> You keep saying that this is in the consensus appendix but as I
> explained before, you have to look at the first and last lines of that
> excerpt to fully appreciate its impact.
>
> Going back to universal design, a common approach is to provide both
> ramps and stairs so people can have their choice. Providing multiple
> versions of a web page would be consistant with that approach.
> dp: only if it is not possible to fil the bill with one and I mean not
> possible and only if those pages were served from the same data set and
> there fore had no chance of not being updated when the content was
> changed or other changes were made to the site that bear on the
> rendering of the data.
>
> >From a technology point of view, it is probably often easier to
> offer different versions of a web page rather than trying to get
> everything in one page. Different versions helps to reduce the
> conflicts
> that can arise in a single version.
> dp: I'd like to see you take a typically well designed page and use the
> guidelines to fail it.
>
> The web, like much of technology, is evolving. While some people may
> wish
> the web was more fixed, other people look at the initial web as being
> the seed from which newer aspects have sprung. If guidelines are
> developed
> with the goal of holding back development of technology, they have a
> good chance of being signored or seen as irrelevant, unless there is
> some regulatory obligation.
> dp: guidelines are not developped to hold back the web. the squabbling
> among the players does that well enough. Guidelines are developped in
> hopes to ensure that the ramps are there along side the stairs.
>
> Please refer to my complete remarks when addressing points so that they
> don't have to be repeated. We need an approach that allows for the web
> to grow and also for it to become more not less accessible such as that
> beind developped for pedestrians.
>
> Scott
>
> PS It would be helpful if you indicated which particular Trace
> documents
> you think I should be aware of. I'm familiar with a number of them.
>>> Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net> 12/16/01 11:01AM >>>
Hi,
Looking at the consensus item:
RE: CLIENT SIDE AND SERVER SIDE SOLUTIONS
S1 - serving content in different forms is an acceptable way to comply
with the guidelines as long as equivalents for all of the information
are provided in the different forms and it is all available through the
same URI (though it may be linked to it) (server side solutions are
acceptable - as specified)
it seems that providing multiple versions of web pages is acceptable.
It doesn't seem to convey the impression of the approach being a "cop out".
It does seem to indicate that using multiple versions of web pages is an
adequate design.
There was the statement:
"You keep saying that this is in the consensus appendix but as I
explained before, you have to look at the first and last lines of that
excerpt to fully appreciate its impact."
Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by the first and last
lines.
Multiple versions of web pages avoid the problems of having to choose
whose needs to serve when there are conflicting needs. With the
increase in bandwidth and computing power, more visual and interactive
technology will be delivered. There will be an increase in conflict of
needs. For example, in terms of limited screen real estate,
the space could be used to provide some accessibility feature or some
feature which will be used by the more general public.
Scott
> Now that we all understand each other, I have some comments in your
> message below marked with dp:
> look for designing a more accessible web on trace.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 2:52 PM
> Subject: Re: FWD: CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The phrase "multiple serve" is not very clear since there are a number
> of interpretations depending on various aspects.
> dp: I would not use that in many contexts but we know what we are
> talking about here and I have explained it.
>
> While some people consider multiple versions of a web page to be a cop
> out,
> other people consider it to be a reasonable use of technology to
> accomodate the needs of varying types of users. Since the text that
> I've quoted before is a consensus item, it would seem that the
> guidelines
> group see providing multiple versions of the same page as a reasonable
> use to technology in addressing the needs of a variety of people.
> dp: let's stick to exact quotes please. I did say that it is often and
> most often at that used as a cop out for not providing adaquate design
> in the first place.
>
> You keep saying that this is in the consensus appendix but as I
> explained before, you have to look at the first and last lines of that
> excerpt to fully appreciate its impact.
>
> Going back to universal design, a common approach is to provide both
> ramps and stairs so people can have their choice. Providing multiple
> versions of a web page would be consistant with that approach.
> dp: only if it is not possible to fil the bill with one and I mean not
> possible and only if those pages were served from the same data set and
> there fore had no chance of not being updated when the content was
> changed or other changes were made to the site that bear on the
> rendering of the data.
>
> >From a technology point of view, it is probably often easier to
> offer different versions of a web page rather than trying to get
> everything in one page. Different versions helps to reduce the
> conflicts
> that can arise in a single version.
> dp: I'd like to see you take a typically well designed page and use the
> guidelines to fail it.
>
> The web, like much of technology, is evolving. While some people may
> wish
> the web was more fixed, other people look at the initial web as being
> the seed from which newer aspects have sprung. If guidelines are
> developed
> with the goal of holding back development of technology, they have a
> good chance of being signored or seen as irrelevant, unless there is
> some regulatory obligation.
> dp: guidelines are not developped to hold back the web. the squabbling
> among the players does that well enough. Guidelines are developped in
> hopes to ensure that the ramps are there along side the stairs.
>
> Please refer to my complete remarks when addressing points so that they
> don't have to be repeated. We need an approach that allows for the web
> to grow and also for it to become more not less accessible such as that
> beind developped for pedestrians.
>
> Scott
>
> PS It would be helpful if you indicated which particular Trace
> documents
> you think I should be aware of. I'm familiar with a number of them.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 09:53:39 UTC