- From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:38:50 -0600
- To: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I'm not sure I understand this, Lee. JAWS 4.5 supports Flash MX through MSAA; so does Window-Eyes, a competing product. Flash MX includes features designed to support accessibility. Are you saying that a developer who uses Flash MX cannot make a conformance claim even if the Flash content is accessible to people who are using both Window-Eyes and JAWS? If this is in fact what we're saying, it worries me-- it sounds like we might be raising the bar to an impossible height. John John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Institute for Technology & Learning University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station G9600 FAC 248C Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu web http://www.ital.utexas.edu -----Original Message----- From: Lee Roberts [mailto:leeroberts@roserockdesign.com] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:18 pm To: WCAG List Subject: RE: 5.2 The reasoning for two independent implementations was to limit the concept that one group would benefit while another would not. At least that was my goal when Jason and I proposed this wording. There was to be included a segment that stated that no one could claim an accessible status if they required tools that were built upon the same engine. Therefore, any tool using the Internet Explorer engine would have to be considered when the other tool used the same engine. It was also pointed out that there is only one user agent that supports the MSAA required by Flash MX. I believe that was Window-Eyes. Therefore, any site that wanted to claim an accessible status using Flash MX would not be able to do such. At least until another user agent provided the access for Flash MX and did not require the MSAA or the Internet Explorer engine. (NOTE: not trying to pick on Flash) Sincerely, Lee Roberts President/CEO 405-321-6372 Rose Rock Design, Inc. http://www.roserockdesign.com -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Seeman (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>) Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:53 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: 5.2 A few clarifications: I am referring to 5.2 in http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/ checkpoint 5.2 reads: Ensure that technologies relied upon by the content are declared and widely available. success criteria level two reads: Technologies and features on the required list are available in at least two independently-developed implementations. Now what is happening is people are claiming accessibility based on technologies that can only be used on the windows/intel platform, and assistive technologies that do not run on window, can not, with all the will in the world, provide support. I see a big difference hear between developing based on a free download, or even a none non-free application, and developing for, say, only IBM with windows. (hay I use IBM and windows, but that is not the point) Part of the difference is that the user can get a new user agent a lot easer then he can sell his mac and buy an IBM. But the BIG difference is that developers of assistive technology for other platforms are barred from developing support. The do not have the API's. They can not do it. It seems to me that this allows potential monopolies, and such games to be played in the assistive technology/platform market. I think that it is the disabled who will pay the price. Any standard that are relied on for fulfillment of these guidelines must be open and usable on more then one, independently owned, platform. Lisa
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 13:38:53 UTC