- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 02:52:59 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
"Anne Pemberton": > At 01:36 AM 10/28/01 +0100, Jim Ley wrote: > >My conclusion is, plug-ins whether free or not can never be required for > >all groups, _but_ users with more specific needs should make best effort > >to use appropriate UA's and these include plug-ins. So for example if in > >3.4, the site author provides images in SVG because they can generate that > >from their content, then it's not unreasonable to expect the user to > >provide the means to view it. Cost shouldn't come into it, reasonableness > >should (of which cost is part of.) > > 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, Nowhere did I suggest they did, I hypothesised about the situation where the content author prefers SVG, because they can generate it, now providing content only in a tech which requires a plug-in (and a very poor one at that requiring hugely more processing power than Flash for example.) is a no-no, however my proposition is that in giving alternative content, it may not be unreasonable, to require a plug-in, it's a reasonable enough expectation of users IMO. > therefore, requiring SVG for 3.4 is impractical I think I'd use the word Ludicrous, that wasn't the point I was trying to make, hopefully I've clarified it, I think it was a mistake choosing 3.4 for the illustration. Jim.
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2001 21:14:31 UTC