W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?

From: Fentress, Robert <rfentres@vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:23:49 -0400
Message-ID: <E7BD4EDD62660F44922C0B11258FBE8F40121A@fangorn.cc.vt.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

So an accessible application that only ran on the Windows platform wouldn't be accessible?  It may not be cross-platform, but does that make it, ipso facto, inaccessible.  Couldn't you just say that users must access the resource on IE on a PC?  Certain flash movies could almost be viewed as applications that happen to run in a browser, and these are just not cross-platform applications, at least in terms of accessibility.  Ideally, web resources should be cross-platform, but they are not always, sometimes for very practical reasons.   I don't feel comfortable ruling out Flash as inaccessible, just because it isn't accessible on every platform.  In many cases, it provides functionality that simply cannot be replicated in more accessible ways, and certainly cannot be replicated with just text.


-----Original Message-----
From:   Lee Roberts [mailto:leeroberts@roserockdesign.com]
Sent:   Tue 7/20/2004 3:35 PM
To:     w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject:        RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?

First and foremost, prove to me that Flash works on
anything other than Microsoft platforms.

It does not work on Mac or Linux.  Therefore it is not
accessible and therefore must have a text alternate
version.  Don't confuse yourselves with propaganda.

Lee Roberts
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2004 16:23:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:50 UTC