- From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hi, I've been thinking about the issue of where the alternative rendering of the information is best handled. In general, I believe for a number of reasons that providing choices of alternative rendering via the browsers is preferable for many blind users. One reason is that blind users can change access technology without needing to learn new ways that the information is going to be presented. This means that a user has some more freedom to switch among acess technology. Having the browser provide alternative renderings reduces the problems which can crop up when a blind person in the workplace or at school needs to use the organization-chosen browser that is not well supported by access technology. More of the burden is on browser developers rather than access technology developers. My suspicion is that it is probably easier for browser developers to "tweak" their software for alternative renderings rather than teaching access technology about web pages because the alternative renderings that are being asked are not that significant in terms of complexity. Having the browser handle alternative presentations avoids the lag between versions of access technology handling changes to browser. A browser providing alternative renderings does not prevent some access technology from providing additional renderings if some specialize segment needs them. I'm not clear that there are very many reasons why alternative rendering should not be done in browsers. The first reason is that browser developers may not understand or seek out what blind users need. The second reason is why would browser developers go through any effort to have their browser provide alternative arrangements? An idea that came to mind is to include a statement in the guidelines that browsers which do not include the specified alternative formats can be considered to be inaccessible for many blind users. This statement could be used in a number of ways, e.g. legal action, 508, etc. Scott
Received on Friday, 25 September 1998 14:59:49 UTC