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

RE: Validity

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:04:05 -0800
Message-ID: <DC9D05204B1E16419D62C12561C93221063B68CA@p01exm01.macromedia.com>
To: "Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> Roberto:
> Sorry but we are talking about a new set of guidelines, not 
> to a national law of the last Century... There is not only 
> USA but, for eg, also Europe.

You wrote that "(all exisisting law that are wcag-based refer at least
at level 2 of wcag 1.0)".  I correctly refuted that fact, referencing a
specific national law from 2001, which happens to be in this century.
I'm aware that we are talking about a new set of gudelines. Does my
bringing up an inaccuracy in your claim indicate to you that I believe
that WCAG is a US-only document? I'm trying to understand the need for
the mini-lecture on what WCAG 2.0 is for...

> Andrew:
>     As far as not having valid code, it doesn't mean that 
> Flash can't be
>     used, it means that other compromised need to be made.  
> If you want
>     valid code with Flash you need to either:
>     1) require javascript from your users
> Roberto:
> This is not in discussion. Javascript should respect 
> accessibility issues.

It is in the discussion because real web developers building real web
sites use this technique.

> Andrew:
>     2) use proprietary IE-specific comments
> Roberto:
> That, in html, are normal comments.

Yep, and some people use them.  

> Andrew:
>     3) use a valid technique that breaks accessibility in the 
> most widely
>     used user agent for blind people
> Roberto:
> At now i can test it only in IE + AT. Can u tell please where 
> there is support for flash accessibility?

Right now support is through Internet Explorer, with JAWS (4.5+),
Window-Eyes (4.2+), ZoomText (8+), to name the most common.

If you use a technique like the "Flash Satay" technique, JAWS won't read
the Flash content.

> Andrew:
>     Does using the embed element cause problems for automated 
> testing tools?
>     Really?  They seem to parse it now fairly well...
> Roberto:
> Nope, but means to use a proprietary tag (from netscape) that 
> has never Been part of any spec.

But it works and alternatives have been problematic.

> Andrew:    
>     If you think that this is all about the Flash player then 
> your view is
>     too narrow. This is a problem for QuickTime, SVG, 
> WindowsMedia, Real,
>     and others.  
> Roberto:
> Yes i know, but they use all code that conform to specifications.

I see...





Here's an actual SVG developer than won't use the object element (until
2008) for embedding SVG because a bug in Safari causes the browser to
crash.  He wants to support his users, and is willing to accept code
invalidity in favor of functionality.  Zero negative effects on disabled

Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 15:04:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC