RE: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft

Hi Bob, you put a clear example: <embed> isn't inside any DTD, like <marquee> and <blink>.
But, due that Macromedia decided to use it instead of <object> and <param>, and also probably for poor browser object support (IE prefer "clsid", other "type" attribute) there was a large diffusion of invalid elements.
But is possible also use object without flash satay: http://www.robertoscano.info/works/captioning/flash/
I can see it also in here from my pocketpc (only captions don't work... I think is a limitation of flash plugin).

The problem is: no valid code means also dom parsing interpretation, more checks for AT, so more money for develop AT. 
So, what we want is support wrong policies of companies that use proprietary elements and/or that are not able to create tools that conform to level A of atag 2.0? Really?

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Bob Regan"<bregan@macromedia.com>
    Inviato: 27/07/05 17.19.38
    A: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "giorgio@dimi.uniud.it"<giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>, "Phill Jenkins"<pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
    Cc: "gv@trace.wisc.edu"<gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "w3c-wai-au@w3.org"<w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft
      
    Roberto,
    
    I don't think you are being fair to vendors or IBM. 
    
    The question before this group is to develop a set of guidelines based
    on available technologies AND available best practice. 
    
    The long and the short of it is that valid code is not part of best
    practice today. That is to say, simply having valid code does not ensure
    the accessibility of a site or necessarily improve the usability of a
    site. While we can argue it will one day have a positive impact the
    reality today is that it does not. I would go a step further to say that
    there are cases where relying on valid code alone can actually detract
    from the accessibility of a site. Think about Flash and the use of the
    <embed> element. It is not valid markup but Flash satay breaks the
    accessibility of the ActiveX control. More generally, think about the
    limited support of CSS in most screen readers. 
    
    The fallacy here is that invalid code results in inaccessible sites or
    that it detracts from the usability of the site. While I would agree
    whole heartedly that there are cases where this is true, I do not
    believe it is uniquely true. As I mentioned, there are cases where
    invalid code results in a more accessible page. 
    
    Interoperability and support for standards is a priority in industry. In
    fact, I would argue IBM and Macromedia (to name just two examples
    singled out here) are leaders in that respect. However, until we see
    broader support, the issue is feasibility, not reluctance on the part of
    industry. 
    
    Cheers,
    Bob
    
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -
    bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
    Behalf Of Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
    Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:53 AM
    To: giorgio@dimi.uniud.it; Phill Jenkins
    Cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-au@w3.org
    Subject: Re: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft
    
    
    Hi,
    The problem is that, with technologies that are xml based - like xhtml
    1.0/1.1, invalid code stop the dom parsing and make pages inaccessible
    to all.
    Atag 1.0 pointed valid code generation at level 1: shall atag 2.0 and
    wcag 2.0 renegade this?
    I a k seriously: why all vendors against valid code (respect w3c rec.)?
    It's about two years that in AC meetings I ask to Tbl that members
    should support w3c rec. And he always said: ask to them!
    So I ask to IBM: why no valid code generation at level 1?
    
    
        

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 16:14:39 UTC