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

RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:43:13 +0000 (UTC)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0407221739450.17059@aristotle.multipattern.com>

> Requiring a person to use your chosen set of AT tells me
> the person has no idea what accessible is.

That's correct in principle, but the example isn't:

> Flash fails compliance testing because it requires the
> user to be on Microsoft platforms.

No, that's only the case because the only truly functional screen readers 
work on Windows. OutSpoken for OS 9 is a dead product on a discontinued 
platform; emacspeak has precisely two known users. When screen readers 
develop for Macintosh (one has already been announced) and Linux (one 
thinks of GNOME), *then* they may be updated to work with accessible Flash 
content. Same with PDF.

And both those file formats will continue to be made more accessible. (Hi, 
Bob! I have in no way forgotten about you, Bob!)

I love it when WCAG fundamentalists blast "proprietary" formats for being 
inaccessible even when they have accessibility features and when other 
proprietary formats (like QuickTime, RealMedia, and Windows Media) are 
lauded for their accessibility features.

And, Lee, quit the goddamned top-posting.


     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:43:18 UTC

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