W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:13:06 -0500
To: <sdale@stevendale.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1B73Js-0007uB-00@mynah.mail.pas.earthlink.net>

> Why not?  It is not good enough to say dont worry about it 
> because that is the way they all are (inaccessible).  And 

I'm not sure where you're reading me stating that this is a non-issue that
shouldn't be worried about.  In fact, I state the exact opposite a couple of
paragraphs down.  I wrote, "the fact that other embedded players doesn't
provide justification for the inaccessibility of the media player".

> Kelly is trying to alert AOL of IT'S inaccessible embedded 
> media player.  What you wrote here gives the feeling that 
> since noone has attempted to fix the problem, it is ok to be 
> inaccessible until one (or more) comes along that is 
> accessible.  

Kelly is welcome to alert AOL, and he should do so.  He has brought up many
excellent points about access issues that I have seen.

The feeling you describe is not what I was trying to convey.  You're
applying a bias to my words that is not supported by the actual words I

> This way of thinking (whether or not you meant 
> it that way) is one reason most of the web is still 
> inaccessible and businesses not moving to rectify it. If 
> everyone else is not accessible, then why should I bother 
> until I am in the minority.  And with the majority thinking 
> that way, accessiblity will not be an important issue with them.

Agreed.  That mindset, which neither I nor the my contacts at AOL hold, does
impede progress.  In any large organization you are bound to have people
that are at either end of the spectrum.  

> >I agree that this is an issue that should be addressed, and the fact 
> >that other embedded players doesn't provide justification for the 
> >inaccessibility of the media player, but I don't think that 
> a blanket 
> >dismissal of AOL's accessibility efforts is appropriate.
> I have a problem here.... dissmissal no, but if it is 
> inaccessible on one thing... it is STILL inaccessible.

The player is not accessible and there is no good justification.  However,
AOL does a lot more than provide a version of the WinAMP player that is
embedded in Web pages.  To state that "AOL access is not functioning...as a
company concept" is unnecessarily inflammatory and doesn't accurately
reflect AOL's ongoing work addressing accessibility in its products.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Project Manager, WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
125 Western Avenue
Boston, MA 02134
Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 21:13:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:27 UTC