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

reply to the review of Issue ID: 2059

From: aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:54:27 +0100
Message-ID: <472DA4E3.9080508@free.fr>
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

Hi,

here is my comment in regard of the current review for bug 2059 :
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=2059

I agree for the company who want to use their own list but the problem 
is more that you let company claim the accessibility of their own 
product/technology without any control and with really vague criteria
(as number of supported : plateform, AT, browser).
I like to be as optimistic as you but I think that the commercial and 
marketing communication of big company like Adobe, Microsoft is more 
powerful that the feedback and comment off the small community of 
accessibility.
Can you give me an answer for my last comment :
Why, it' s a problem for the WCAG working group (or another w3c 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)

For my part I think that the support of two different plateform 
accessibility API (NSAccessibility protocol for OSX and MSAA for 
example) and the support of two different browser is a minimum to be an 
accessibility supported technology. Without that minimum the technology 
can't be used as an accessibility supported technology except the case 
of using them in a close environment (every user have jaws 8, PC and IE7 
for example)

Best regards

Aurélien Levy
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 10:54:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:09 UTC