- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:20:31 -0800
- To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>, "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
My full comments may be interesting, as we're still discussing the topic of multiple "versions" (not the best term) of a site -- or at least Scott still is. :) At 2:09 PM -0800 12/17/01, Kendra Mayfield wrote: >Are alternative versions of websites necessary or even a good idea? Alternative versions of web sites are not only a good idea, they're a great idea and are necessary for the evolution of the web and for continued access to content by people with disabilities! When the W3C's web content accessibility guidelines were written, the only workable model was a single, static source which was intepreted by an intelligent user agent. The assumption was that accessibility would result from the accessible content being translated into whatever the user requires for access. This has proven to not be a workable solution for a number of reasons -- including the cost of development of specialized browsing software and assistive technology, lack of consistent and implementable specifications, and the simple fact that HTML is a poor language for expressing transformable web semantics, but it's too entrenched to replace now. This means that it makes sense, whenever possible, to shift the burden back to the server. Servers are cheap and easy to upgrade, compared to deploying new software or hardware to every user out there. Intelligent servers can carry the burden of access easier than intelligent browsers -- and right now, we don't have anything even approaching an intelligent browser available, as the leading browsers all fall short on implementing the basics of web standards. The increasing use of database-driven template systems and content management software on major web sites makes it easy for companies like Amazon to provide alternate interfaces for various users -- be those users with disabilities, with non-English primary languages, with hand-held devices, and so on. A dynamic, up-to-date, and complete alternate web site should be no more than a case of simply configuring a new template, with the 21st century server systems available today. The bigger challenge -- and this is where Amazon may have fallen short -- is understanding how best to tailor those alternate interfaces to the needs of the specific user group. The W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative has concentrated on "one size fits all" design, which means there is very little guidance which says how to design user interfaces _only_ for blind users. It's not as easy as just removing graphics or substituting alt text, but this is an area that still needs a lot of research and investigation before the problem will be solved. Dynamic generation of web sites opens up a whole new realm of possibilities for greater access, and this is just the start of sites designed with the user's needs foremost. Let's not be too quick to condemn Amazon for their goals, even if their implementation may need work. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 12:34:26 UTC