W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

A few questions

From: Jon Hanna <jon@spinsol.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:15:26 -0000
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBLCBLIMDOPKMOPHLHCEGACOAA.jon@spinsol.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm a newbie to this list, so apologies if these have been asked
recently (yes, I did flick through the archives).

1. I normally talk about usability and accessibility in the same
breath. Can anyone think of times when one damages the other, i.e.
when improving usability for one group comes at the expense of
damaging it for another, esp. if to the point of making a site
completely inaccessible to that group.

2. We've been developing an XML-based content delivery product (I'm
not going to plug it, if only for the fact that the site about it is
under development and currently inaccessible to some groups). In the
course of R&D we developed a Flash based version of the products
output, where we send XML to Flash. From the point of view of
accessibility this seems to offer a solution to many of the problems
with Flash, since the same XML can also be transformed into HTML (the
browser could be queried to find the best version to send). However
we only developed this Flash version to show that we could and
haven't really experimented with its implications.

Has anyone found problems with XML -> Flash wrt. accessibility
(assuming of course that we also do XML -> HTML when appropriate).

3. Is there any browser that currently uses the aural part of the
CSS2 spec, esp. if available as a Win32 binary.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>

iQA/AwUBOoO1LtlYbmO7kSNQEQIqTQCglJegVUUvbusn+sqSo61m1KWv8z0Anjf9
2H/Gvwlg4akzKinHbuJptsUb
=Yx5U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 04:15:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT