W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: R: R: NEW: Issue #1544

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:57:30 +0200
To: <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200508121755718.SM00980@Inbox>

Can you make me another example where wcag (1.0 or 2.0) authorize violation of other W3C  specification? 

You are defending an element for an unique product that is accessible only with IE6 and with some screen readers: is this the accessibility that W3C wants? I hope not.

Btw, for the MSAA specification and about how Flash handle MSAA, i will send u tomorrow some links.

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Matt May"<mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
    Inviato: 12/08/05 22.28.38
    A: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>
    Cc: "'WAI-GL'"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Re: R: R: NEW: Issue #1544
    
    
    Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:
    
    >Yes, we are working for accessibility but this don't authorize us to violate
    >other W3C specifications.
    >  
    >
    
    Yes, it does, if necessary. Our primary allegiance is to users with 
    disabilities, not W3C specs. This document operates in real life, not 
    theory.
    
    >Roberto Scano:
    >The problem is not the AT that don't handle <object> correctly but in the
    >case of Flash is that Flash uses <embed> for dialog with MSAA with "set"
    >options, instead of using <object> with "get" options
    >  
    >
    
    That's not the information I have, and the link you sent doesn't say 
    anything about it.
    
    -
    m
    
    
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Friday, 12 August 2005 21:58:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT