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

Re: Validity

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:54:12 +0100
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20051104114314.032a2198@mailserv.esat.kuleuven.be>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hi Roberto,

At 10:20 4/11/2005, Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:
<blockquote>
I think that the problem is specifically vendor-oriented.
Flash for accessibility features (that is available only with ms windows + 
jaws/hpr and IE) need to have <embed> element because they have implemented 
MSAA for work with embed.
</blockquote>

Isn't this an element of "practical reality" that can be used as an 
argument against requiring valid code at level 1? How does using <embed> 
harm accessibility? Should WCAG ban content just because it uses a certain 
technology or because the content (in spite of accessibility features of 
the technology) is inaccessible?

<blockquote>
(...)
Sorry for the tune of this post, but it's incredible that we need to force 
wcag 2.0 for conform with a plugin that is accessible only in one OS and 
with a specific configuration (i don't know what would happen if the 
company was Microsoft instead of Macromedia).
</blockquote>

Based on what you write above, it is not "Microsoft instead of Macronmedia" 
but "Microsoft and Macromedia" because the former company is responsible 
for MSAA.

Regards,

Christophe Strobbe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 10:55:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT