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

RE: R: NEW: Issue #1544

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:32:38 +0200
To: <lguarino@adobe.com>, "'Tina Holmboe'" <tina@greytower.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002a01c5a02d$0209db20$0200a8c0@rsnbiwa>



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of lguarino@adobe.com
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:23 PM
To: Tina Holmboe
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: R: NEW: Issue #1544



We seem to be getting baseline issues and validity issues entangled here.

Let us hypothesize a baseline that includes Flash. Today, that probably
means an environment where all users 
are guaranteed access to Window + IE +  JAWS or WindowEyes. If content in
that environment makes Flash 
accessible via use of the <embed> object, but otherwise satisfies all the
WCAG success criteria, should the 
content be judged not in compliance with WCAG 2 because it does not
validate?

Roberto Scano:
No, the content should be judged not in compilance because if baseline
includes Flash, the Flash content must be accessible not only in Windows +
IE + Jaws or WindowEyes but also with other browsers. Otherwise, we are
making like some web sites that wrote : optimized for IE 800x600 16 million
colours.


Loretta:
If a baseline doesn't include Flash, perhaps because the audience is using
non-Windows platforms, then 
alternative content is clearly required for the Flash content.

Roberto Scano:
Yes. It is true. But is required also in the first case, due that Flash is
accessible only with Windows + IE + ScreenReader.
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 17:32:51 GMT

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