W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2011

RE: Web video accessibility

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Karen Lewellen'" <klewellen@shellworld.net>, "'EmbedPlus'" <ext@embedplus.com>
Cc: <accessys@smart.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01f301cc5cfa$6f213b50$4d63b1f0$@edu>
Karen Lewellen wrote:
> 
> Half a moment,
> now I am confused by your comment below.
> "please look at embedpous.com with a conventional browser."

Would the term "full feature" make things more palpable for you Karen?  Or
perhaps simply "a browser that supports Flash-based content"?


> care to define that term where accessibility is concerned

Care to define accessibility where browsers are concerned?

Care to define who is responsible for what in the social contract that is
interacting on the web in 2011?

If you want to have a debate about digital inclusion on the web today,
pick on somebody who has more than 4 days experience and exposure to this
forum. Poor Tay/EmbedPlus, he must be sitting there thinking "These people
are crazy, why should I even bother?" - and you know what, based on how he
has been treated here, he would be perfectly justified. 

You don't grow a community by slamming doors in people's faces, or
publicly ridiculing them for not grasping the nuances of a community's
culture. Instead, we should be welcoming them in, and when they make early
missteps, quietly and privately teach them the better way. If every new
developer approaching this list and this community is treated the way Tay
has been treated over the last few days, we simply will not get more
developers working on "our side". How does that benefit anyone? Seriously?


> If your tool is for the general public, that public will decide based on
> their computer needs what browser fits them, just as individuals decide
> what mode of transportation is best for them.  There is *no* such thing
> as a conventional browser. 

What is unclear to me is how continued brow-beating of the EmbedPlus folks
over their unfamiliarity of the accessibility space, the terms and
conventions we use, and the nuanced points this note and Bob's responses
are trying to make, serves to advance the cause. The tone of the discourse
is all wrong, intentional or otherwise.  Karen, you knew full well what
Tay meant when he wrote "conventional browser" - he is referring to a
mainstream, GUI based, modern browser that currently supports Flash-based
video, and specifically YouTube videos. If you want to correct his
nomenclature, do so charitably, not with the snarky tone you have taken
here. Educate, don't ridicule.

(Does everyone remember the expression "there's no such thing as a dumb
question...")


> The suggestion that a person using the best tool
> for their needs is defying some sort of convention, is a disturbing one
> to hold on a list focused on making access for all the ahem convention.
> Care to clarify?

Hopefully my response on behalf of Tay is clear enough.

JF
(taking on all comers)
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 16:27:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 17 August 2011 16:27:16 GMT