Re: Question about access to ALL content - UAAG 2.1 P1

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> I don't think that it is accesible - I think you are understimating the
> difficulty many people have in understanding a arkup language - both those
> with cognitive disabilities and many others. And in any case the solution
> will only really work for relatively simple markup languages - although it is
> possible to learn postscript or RF as well as HTML there are not many people
> who do it. Any reasonably complex XML language can become incomprehensible
> fairly quickly, and users should not be expected to read the language
> (otherwise why bother with a user agent that interprets it in the first
> place).

So what are our options?

1) Render the content by ignoring all markup. This may cause
   confusion as well since all structure is lost.

2) Render alternative content (or primary content for that matter)
   according to the rendering instructions of the markup language.
   This won't work for HTML or XML applications.

3) Require that the user agent implement a default style sheet
   for any markup language it supports. What should that style sheet
   be? We don't have a standard one for XML applications. One that comes
   to mind will present the content according to the structure of the
   document, which takes us back to the source view.

4) Require that the author supply a style sheet for all types of
content.
   I don't think this helps either the author or the user.

My fear is that we are going to try to define a line for what is
considered
accessible rendering. How do you determine that a user agent (even
a mainstream browser) has rendered content above that line? Where do you
draw that line?

I think it does make sense to say that the *minimal* requirement
is to make the document source available. (I can't think of anything
less than that, hence minimal). 

Where do you draw the line after the minimal requirement?

 - Ian

> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> 
>   Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>   >
>   > I don't think that providing a source view solves the problem. It requires
>   > the user to understand the markup language being used, which is not
>   > necessarily the case, and has thus far been explicitly excluded as a
>   > requirement on the user.
> 
>   I think it minimally satisfies the requirement of making content
>   available. We include no specifics about how content must be rendered
>   (e.g., that alt content for an image be made available inline, in the
>   same geometric area as an image, a click away from the image, in
>   a tool tip, etc.). I wouldn't expect a user to have to read through
>   the encoding of a raster graphic. However, I think that providing
>   text in a view, even if it's surrounded by markup tags, allows users
>   access to that information and thus minimally satisfies the
>   requirement of making (text) content available. I agree that
>   not all attribute values are useful, but since we don't specify
>   that only those for humans need to be available to the user (since
>   it may not be specified clearly in the markup language which are
>   for humans and which are machines), I think it's "safest" to ensure
>   that they are all available.
> [snip]

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 429-8586
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Saturday, 25 March 2000 15:52:58 UTC