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: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:44:34 -0500
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lguarino@adobe.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040721165124.AAB7CA14C2@frink.w3.org>

If browser and AT developers could foresee the future I'm
sure they would develop their tools to meet everyone's
future.  Regrettably, I don't think that is the case.

In 1995 no one expected Macromedia to develop Flash.
Today, Flash is only accessible on Microsoft platforms.

In 1996 no one expected SVG to be developed and the only
organization to design a viewer would be Adobe.

So, my best option is to always have a text alternative to
fallback upon. 

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:40 PM
To: Lee Roberts
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Javascript alternatives not necessary? 


Lee, what should we be telling the developers of these new
technologies that they need to do before their techology
doesn't need a text alternative for accessibility? Or will
it always be the case that they need a text alternative?
 

> 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
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 12:51:24 UTC

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