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 18:11:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Cc: 'WAI-GL' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0407221809340.17059@aristotle.multipattern.com>

> The example that Flash can't output a text version of an
> audio presentation is valid.

There's a captioning tool for Flash. I don't like it, but it's there.

> 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.

I didn't say *you* praised them.

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

In multimedia-- your previous example-- the opposite is the case. You can 
caption but not describe.

> Point is, it will always be the designer's problem because Flash can't 
> convert binary audio presentations into printable material.

You can caption in Flash. I don't know what the hell "convert[ing] binary 
audio presentations into printable material" means. Speech-to-text? The 
Crays in the basement at Fort Meade can do that; maybe you should ring 
them up.

> Stop the insanity and realize what I am saying.

I'm not insane. But thanks.


     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:12:11 UTC

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