- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:50:13 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7075 --- Comment #2 from Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com> 2009-07-03 11:50:12 --- (In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > - users of accessibility technology > > Could you please elaborate? (Plug-ins are themselves responsible for being > accessible.) > Plugins are not responsible for that, their responsible for rendering the embedded content, which is most of time not accessible. Flash, for example, are not accessible to users with screen readers (you cannot syntethize the content of a flash animation), users with color disabilities (you cannot limit yourself to red/blue while designing), users with motor disabilities (there is no tab-index or access-key), etc. Java can be even worse, being completely generated by imperative code. Video is an other example: most video formats don't provide appropriate captioning content. This is one of the reasons a <text> element was proposed for HTML5 video. Music is a third example: if an user can't hear, having a rendered audio plugin in a page can be disturbing, I imagine. And you cannot of course expect that .mp3 includes the lyrics in text format or that the mp3 browser component tries to infer the words from audio analysis (it is difficult to understand them by humans, can you imagine an automated algorithm?). As such, it is often disabled by such users, and because of this and the existence of more accessible alternative solution, embed should be obsoleted / deprecated / made non conforming. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 11:50:22 UTC