RE: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft

Errata: captioning works well.

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>
    Inviato: 27/07/05 18.13.41
    A: "bregan@macromedia.com"<bregan@macromedia.com>, "giorgio@dimi.uniud.it"<giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>, "pjenkins@us.ibm.com"<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
    
    
    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
    
    

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

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 16:19:48 UTC