- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:56:45 +0200 (CEST)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 13 Aug, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:
> Hi Loretta, what I'm trying to say and I try to understand is what we
> intend for "web content accessibility" and how we test it (which
> operative enviroment is used: OS, browser, etc.). If there will be a
[ lguarino@adobe.com in <45f1fc46098a.46098a45f1fc@adobe.com>]:
> Let us hypothesize a baseline that includes Flash.
I think we need to ask ourselves this:
If we hypothesize a baseline that includes Flash, can a site
which comply to such a baseline be deemed accessible according to
WCAG 2.0 *even if some people can't get to the content*?
This is, however, a different discussion from whether valid syntax
should be required.
It seems to me that it isn't all that difficult: if the baseline
contains a requirement for HTML, then we should also assume that it
requires VALID HTML. Anything else would be illogical.
The bigger question then becomes whether baselines are not quite,
quite evil.
> is that also authorizing to use <embed> (in violation of other W3C
> spec), the flash content will be accessible *ONLY* if:
> * User must use Flash Player 6 or newer
> * User must use Windows, IE 5.5+, MSAA (MicroSoft Active Accessibility)
> * User must use screen reader that uses MSAA. Currently, WindowEyes 4.2+,
> Jaws 4.5+
> * Flash must open in separate window (allows user to navigate into and
> out of the Flash content)
> So we want to ask all this? And for different browser/OS/AT?
An interesting baseline, and an interesting question: what, in light
of this, does accessibility *really* mean?
We need to discuss this baseline issue, that much is certain.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 18:57:04 UTC