W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2007

better but still dommageable concept

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:02:04 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070626180204.B29186B645@kent.w3.org>

Name: Aurélien Levy
Email: aurelien.levy@free.fr
Affiliation: tektonika
Document: W2
Item Number: Accessibility Support of Web Technologies
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: technical
Summary of Issue: better but still dommageable concept
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
I think the concept of accessibility supported technologies is far better than the baseline concept in term of wording. It\'s much more understandable but there is still big problems with lake of definition of some element like : widely-distributed user agents and widely-distributed user plugins, purchase in a way that does not disadvantage people with disabilities (purchase disadvantage everybody, as far as i know AT vendor didn\'t not sell different version for disabled or not person, and if it\'s about cost disadvantage at what price it make it a disadvantage)

There is question with no response like how many platform, AT, language need to support a technology to be concidered like accessible.

One of the most problematic part is : Authors, companies or others may wish to create and use their own lists of accessibility-supported technologies.

For me it\'s clearly means that for example Adobe can say Flash is an accessible technology because it\'s work when you use Flash 7 or more, IE and a PC and a \"widely distributed\" plugin. But what about Mac and Linux Users,  what about jaws 6 and firefox users. 

At this time validate the fact, that only HTML (and maybe PDF) can  be considered like an accessibility supported technology, other technology specially flash and javascript still need fallback alternative. Otherwise, we will see a lot off full flash website working just with ie  claimed that they are accessible with a AAA level when majority of user haven\'t any access to content.

It\'s to the WCAG working group to maintain a list of accessible technology and not only limited to W3C technology (since the working group is partially composed by employee of non standard technology  company it must not be a problem)

Proposed Change:
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 18:02:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:44 UTC