- From: Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:13:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- To: Livio Mondini <l.mondini@webprofession.com>
- cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Mia Lipner <mia.lipner@pearson.com>, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>, public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Livio said: > Another problem is that here also we are falling in "screen > reader accessibility". Accessibility is for all, not just for screen > readers. For what it's worth, Livio, I did specifically point out keyboard accessibility, as a place where I believe there is absolutely no solution for Flash (in that Flash is always a keyboard trap). Now, it is the great dilemma of accessibility standards folks that it is not our job to design standards around what user agents do or don't do. And in digital publishing, it is not our job to define the entire digital publishing world as contained within EPUB. But we are actually not explicitly talking about writing standards, here. We are actually talking about best practices for publishers and content creators who don't want to be sued. And while accessibility standards people might have to acknowledge the fact that Flash *can* be made somewhat accessible (even though it almost never is), that doesn't mean it's the best practice recommendation to use it. I like that the consensus coming out of this discussion seems to be along the lines of "recommend that the publishers not use it unless there is absolutely no other way to do it, but point them to accessibility standards for Flash so they can remediate their existing Flash that they don't want to reprogram."
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 16:14:13 UTC