- From: Jukka Korpela <jukka.korpela@tieke.fi>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:45:11 +0300
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I wonder if anyone has tried to use HTTP content negotiation mechanism for serving different variants according to special needs, e.g. to send a sign language version to people who have specified a sign language as their first preference. The problem that would be addressed this way is twofold: 1) The usual "version selection" page is an unnecessary and potentially confusing step. Naturally, such a page should be available too, for various reasons, but hopefully the automated mechanisms would, by time, mostly help to avoid it. 2) It is impossible to present alternatives in a truely balanced way. The typical approach of having a "normal" page and links to alternate (abnormal?) versions can be regarded as making people with special needs second class netizens. And making e.g. a sign language version the primary version would not be suitable to the majority (though it might be a feasible solution on pages that are primarily intended for people who know sign language). Language negotiation is a well-defined technique that has been used for selecting between "normal" written languages. There are varying opinions on how suitable it actually is, but it seems to get more and more use, though slowly. Those who don't know the concept might wish to take a look at my http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/multi/ But the accessibility issue is the use of language negotation so that sign languages, visual symbol languages, strongly simplified versions of "normal" languages, etc., are involved. Many of those languages have no formalized identifiers (as per ISO 639 and the relevant RFCs and registries) but this need not prevent experimentation or specialized use, since browsers typically let the user enter whatever string they like as language code. I think it would be useful to have some statements about the methods in which different variants are presented to users, in cases where the same content appears in different variants, for some good reason. Simple links are the simple answer, and will probably be always used as one way of accessing the different variants, but maybe we should aim at something more automatic in the long run. -- Jukka Korpela, senior adviser TIEKE Finnish Information Society Development Centre http://www.tieke.fi Phone: +358 9 4763 0397 Fax: +358 9 4763 0399
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2002 06:45:29 UTC