W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Proposed response to the WAIC public comment

From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <878324.36244.qm@web111721.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Loretta,
Refer to:
Your example describes the YouTube player as not under the author's
control; it may be updated without notice. The independent update of
the player does sound similar to the examples above, so it could be
considered third party content.
Comment: The above likens the player to content like email, blog entry etc. I do not think that is the intent of the WCAG2 doc when it says:
"Sometimes, Web pages are created that will later have additional
content added to them. For example, an email program, a blog, an
article that allows users to add comments, or applications supporting
user-contributed content. ..." 

The player is a widget or a user agent that renders audio-video content and the author should take care to select one that is accessible as the audio-video content depends on it. The 'accessibility supported' clause comes into play here.
One alternative is to allow the user to download the content and play it in a player of his choice.

Alternative scenario: Suppose there is a Word or Excel doc and for argument sake, the only way to render it is via the Word /Excel Viewer launched from the browser. This is not accessible for some AT users.
So this is not AT supported and will fail in my opinion.
But in reality if one can download the doc and open it locally using Word / Excel, then there is no such problem. 
Sailesh Panchang
Accessibility Services Lead
www.deque.com



      
Received on Saturday, 23 October 2010 04:44:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 23 October 2010 04:44:32 GMT