W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Automated Accessibility Options

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:34:51 +1100
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
Message-Id: <7722DD7F-2736-11D7-B233-000A95678F24@sidar.org>

On Monday, Jan 13, 2003, at 21:44 Australia/Melbourne, Jim Ley wrote:

> "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org> wrote in message
> news:D8D4F6EF-2687-11D7-B3E0-000A95678F24@sidar.org...
>> On Monday, Jan 13, 2003, at 10:31 Australia/Melbourne, Nick Kew wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>>> you should probably look at CC/PP [1] as similar work
>>> Are you sure about that?  My concern is that RDF introduces a whole
>>> new level of complexity, that doesn't really seem justified in
>>> such a simple negotiation.  Unless perhaps we reduce it in the
>>> manner of dc: in HTML <meta> elements?
>> I am sure you should look at CC/PP... Actually I am not certain that
>> the use of RDF does increase the overhead unjustifiably.
> You can build a proxy into IE that modifies simple headers easily 
> (actually
> you can, I think, do it simply via the registry, and 5 lines of script 
> to
> provide the registry changing...), coupling an RDF parser into is 
> certainly
> non-trivial, you also have the problem of educating users to author
> appropriate vocabularies, or develop a suitable editor.

You certainly need a decent editor - expecting people to edit RDF for 
setting up preferences is just dreaming. Even something like Apple's 
Access menu in OS X.2 (which groups functionality problems, but 
provides fairly tech-oriented proposals for solutions, and doesn't have 
simple things like "i would like the font bigger please...") doesn't 
strike me as good enough yet. But it is going in the right direction.

There may be someone working on this problem in Melbourne, as part of a 
larger project. I'll follow up.

> CC/PP is massively
> over-engineered for the above, doesn't work simply with web caches 
> (unlike
> Nick's x-accessibility header)

Why doesn't CC/PP work readily with caches?

>    A simple view header which describes what
> resource you want from the server, is very different to describing to 
> the
> server what you can deal with, and leaving it up to the server to 
> decide
> what to give.

True. But at its simplest CC/PP should work like a view header, except 
it will allow people to generate a one-off profile for themselves that 
can't really be done using Nick's simple proposal. (It is a question of 
whether the 80/20 solution works here, or whether there is value using 
the full framework in order to get another 80% of the 20% left out in 
the first cut...)



Charles McCathieNevile           charles@sidar.org
Fundación SIDAR                       http://www.sidar.org
Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 15:35:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:13 UTC