W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: SVG Mania and the Sematic Web

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:25:02 -0000
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <asffv6$s6q$1@main.gmane.org>


"David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200212012354.gB1NsVO32314@djwhome.demon.co.uk...
>
> > There is a side issue of dynamic SVG replacing dynamic HTML,
especially for
> > pull down menus.  Does this have the same accessibility issues, or
does it
> > overcome some or many of them.
>
> My view is that SVG is competing with Flash,

Unfortunately many users seem to think this, I don't I see them in very
different areas of the marketplace (although the area of "publishing on
the web" encompasses them both just like HTML/PDF)

> Originally, it offered a more semantic way of doing static drawings
than
> bit maps, but now all the concentration is on animation.

I disagree with this, there's still lot of static drawings being done -
this is the only sort of SVG that could remotely be called accessible
today too IMO.

> With likely
> authoring tools, authors will be able to easily place components of the
> page individually, and are unlikely to place them in a sensible
linearised
> reading order, because they will probably never see the linearised
code.

Also because you can't really get a sensible linearised reading order,
because the only way to control this also controls the z-index of the
element, and the navigation index, so it's near impossible without lots
of fiddling.

> This is not a new view, although it has been reinforced by the
direction
> of the discussions on www-svg following the release of the the version
1.1
> draft.

1.1 draft? 1.1 is a Proposed Rec.  1.2 draft is available.

Jim.
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 06:32:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:07 GMT