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

Re: R: NEW: Issue #1544

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:42:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200508131742.j7DHggUm011533@asterix.andreasen.se>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:55 UTC