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: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:08:06 -0500
To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040722180809.0C579A05C3@frink.w3.org>

The example that Flash can't output a text version of an
audio presentation is valid.  I didn't praise anything
except SMIL.  Never once did I use QuickTime, RealMedia or
Windows Media File.  So, don't put words in my typing that
I didn't say.

As a general rule and prove it's not, Flash designers
ignore the deaf while claiming they make their
applications accessible to the blind.

You're ignoring one segment of users while praising it for
something it can't do.

Point is, it will always be the designer's problem because
Flash can't convert binary audio presentations into
printable material.  Therefore, not only does it not work
for blind people very well (only if the developer uses the
accessibility features of the program) it doesn't work for
deaf people.

Stop the insanity and realize what I am saying.  If you
don't understand it play a Flash presentation with audio
instructions, without exact translations ready for print,
on a computer with out speakers.  You'll quickly learn
that my statement is fact and not some dream.

SMIL doesn't require speakers.  SMIL requires the
developer to program the material correctly which includes
a text alternative.  Of course, if it does not have a text
alternative then the problem falls back on the developer
not the standard.

Hopefully this is succinct enough that the message gets
across.

Lee Roberts
http://www.roserockdesign.com
http://www.applepiecart.com
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:08:09 UTC

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