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

RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?

From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:36:12 -0500
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lguarino@adobe.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040720213618.ED6D2A0607@frink.w3.org>

Loretta points out that our guidelines should stand the
test of time.

OK.

While we focus upon things like JavaScript, SVG and Flash,
who says that some smart person won't come up with a new
technology?  Each time we have a new technology come up we
are in the same position ... it won't work on all
platforms and in all assistive technology. Therefore, we
must have a fallback position.

That fallback position must be an equivalent text
alternative.

Lee Roberts
http://www.roserockdesign.com
http://www.applepiecart.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:06 PM
To: Lee Roberts
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Javascript alternatives not necessary? 

But Michael was just using Flash as an example for a more
general question. 
We'd like these guidelines to stand for a long time, and
technology will continue to change.

Supposing that Flash did have support on Mac and Linux.
Would that change your answer? Are there any conditions
that wouldn't require a text alternative?

	Loretta

> First and foremost, prove to me that Flash works on
anything other 
> than Microsoft platforms.
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2004 17:36:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC