- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 11:02:26 -0500 (EST)
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- cc: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This is simply untrue. Cognitively disabled users who are looking for
animated content have every reason to prefer SVG over other formats, or at
least every reason that can be advanced for using flash.
SVG is not vapourware, it works in animated form now using a readily
available plugin, it works in at least two static form that supports
accessibility features.
To make general handwaving assertions about how hard things might be is not
helpful. We need to assess the technologies available, and the solutions they
can provide, and then what is on the horizon that we should think about in
order to provide a better solution as the technology improves.
Otherwise we would be using text-only browsers.
Charles
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:
The user groups who is expected to be accommodated by 3.4 are those with
cognitive, reading, and learning disabilities. They have no need to prefer
SVG over JPG, GIF, etc Rastor Images, unless they are also Visually
Impaired .... therefore, requiring SVG for 3.4 is impractical ... it has no
purpose in the intended benefactor group, although it may have benefits to
peripheral groups ...
Further, as it is presently, downloading an SVG reader does not result in
the intended benefits. It's still vaporware, and I've heard it said it's 5
years away from reality .... that is far past the scope of WCAG 2.0 ....
Anne
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2001 11:02:30 UTC