W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: DC2002 and Accessibility Metadata

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:09:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0209161005230.5863-100000@smarty.smart.net>

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Jim Ley wrote:

let's add one more variable to this mess, many computer users, especially
among the less economically endowed (that was a "bad" one eh?)

   many of these folks and school children use common or multi user
computers, the library use a permanent link to the internet around here,
so how would you know what any individual using this computer actually
needed.  I can go to the library, toggle into text and use the computer
without any hassle, bring only what I actually need for adaptation.  


> "SHARPE, Ian" <Ian.SHARPE@cambridge.sema.slb.com> wrote in message
> news:FA94B04D5981D211B86800A0C9EA2841011422E3@cames1.sema.co.uk...
> > What information should be contained in your profile? This should
> contain
> > any access technology installed, browser configuration (eg colours/font
> > sizes, user stylesheet in use), OS display/screen configuration, and
> user
> > preferences. This could be created by any or all of the browser, access
> > technology, manually by the user or even the OS. A simple text file
> (XML)
> > could easily be maintained for this purpose. Since there is no personal
> > information I can't see any problems with storage or abuse of civil
> > liberties. This actually tells you nothing about the user themself,
> simply
> > how the system is configured.
> I can't agree that it tells you nothing about the user, it tells you a
> huge amount about the user and almost all of it is things that I do not
> wish websites to know about me.  Even if I'm completely anonymous when I
> first visit the site, as soon as I do any interaction (register/purchase
> etc.) then I'm immediately "known", and the AT technology installed would
> appear to very well indicate information I may not want people to
> automatically know.
> Also your examples above are all about the configuration and the browser
> environment not the preferences of a user, how do I configure my browser
> to say I have red/green colour blindness, how do I say I find flickering
> at 3hz annoying but 10hz fine, how do I say I prefer text content unless
> it's the image is photographic and what is the server supposed to do with
> all this fine grained information.  If we give the users access to all
> the content we've got, the user can decide  (by configuration of their
> UA) how they access that content - How can some server who's never met
> the user, knows only a tiny amount about them, know what's best for the
> user?
> How is a server supposed to know what to give a UA/AT combination it
> doesn't know about, do UA's have to be registered, or were you thinking
> of a complete UA description language - if not we'll run into the exact
> issue we've already got with the server making decisions on what the
> browser claims to be - currently in the HTTP_USER_AGENT string - the UA's
> will be forced to lie otherwise they won't get content appropriate to
> their UA.  This degrading of the information will make the information
> worthless as HTTP_UA already is.
> Also, far from using the information to provide accessible content it can
> be used as an argument not to provide accessible content online.
> Providers can choose to build for a single environment, safe in the
> knowledge that they can reliably identify people and tell them "Phone ...
> for the service" or however they wan't to (claim they) provide the
> service to users.  Accessibility also becomes a much harder "sell",
> because the management can genuinely claim that all their users can see
> images (why bother with ALT and LONGDESC, look we know they don't need
> it)
> > The use of meta tags for this purpose could be included in the
> guidelines
> > and even used to possibly promete the above desing model as best
> practice?
> > As government policy throughout the world adopt similar approaches to
> the
> > US, rather than "gettosing" accessible sites I this "categorisation"
> could
> > actually do the opposite. It could almost become a kind of kyte mark
> and a
> > sign of quality. All users prefer to use clear and clean sites and
> would use
> > them in preferrence to cluttered and unclear content.
> This appears to be describing something very different to previously,
> this is about their being machine-readable claims about the accessibility
> of a resource, and in what way it fails, as we know most users don't care
> if a resource is WCAG AAA or not, they care if _they_ can access the
> content, and a fine grained vocabulary for describing how accessible a
> document is, is very useful.
> Jim

   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 10:00:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:11 UTC