- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:42:42 +0200 (CEST)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 13 Aug, lguarino@adobe.com wrote: > 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 This is an excellent illustration of the dangers that the "baseline" idea in WCAG 2 poses. In Sweden, where I live but have given up on working, the predominant idea is that every disabled person with need will be provided with a computer, a version of Windows, a version of Internet Explorer, and a version of - typically - JAWS, for free. Several studies, none to my knowledge translated, indicate that this is not entirely correct; and critique has been raised since the assumption also dictate policy. But perhaps these two issues - baseline and validity - are not as disjointed as it seems. Are we really going to send the message that a baseline can be adopted that do not include "valid HTML"[*] as one requirement, and would WCAG survive as a trustworthy resource if we did? [*] Just for the record, I'd like to add that a markup language with EMBED in it is all well and good, but it isn't HTML. -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/ [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 17:42:49 UTC