W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Problems with OTACS-2

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 11:02:26 -0500 (EST)
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
cc: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0110281059000.15696-100000@tux.w3.org>
This is simply untrue. Cognitively disabled users who are looking for
animated content have every reason to prefer SVG over other formats, or at
least every reason that can be advanced for using flash.

SVG is not vapourware, it works in animated form now using a readily
available plugin, it works in at least two static form that supports
accessibility features.

To make general handwaving assertions about how hard things might be is not
helpful. We need to assess the technologies available, and the solutions they
can provide, and then what is on the horizon that we should think about in
order to provide a better solution as the technology improves.

Otherwise we would be using text-only browsers.


On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:

  The user groups who is expected to be accommodated by 3.4 are those with
  cognitive, reading, and learning disabilities. They have no need to prefer
  SVG over JPG, GIF, etc Rastor Images, unless they are also Visually
  Impaired .... therefore, requiring SVG for 3.4 is impractical ... it has no
  purpose in the intended benefactor group, although it may have benefits to
  peripheral groups ...

  Further, as it is presently, downloading an SVG reader does not result in
  the intended benefits. It's still vaporware, and I've heard it said it's 5
  years away from reality .... that is far past the scope of WCAG 2.0 ....

Received on Sunday, 28 October 2001 11:02:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC