- From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:44:32 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Robert Fentress says: [quote]Frankly, I don't care if something meets a standard. I care if it is accessible to users with a variety of needs.[/quote] It seems odd to me that someone whose goals appear to be to help develop standards for accessible web content and design would state that they don't care about standards. Please enlighten us all with why someone with views like this would want to be participating in the WCAG working group. [quote]Please explain to me how you can create modular learning content that tracks and responds to the user and can be moved between learning management systems without some sort of client-side scripting.[/quote] Personally it would depend upon the elements I'm testing. If I'm developing a system that is modular and can be shared by different systems that then requires that I develop a system using a database or XML. Client-side arguments are dead. Client-side scripts help reduce bandwidth and repetitive reloading of pages. Client-side scripts allow people to get immediate responses if the form is filled out incorrectly. Server-side codes have been doing this for years. Learn to use server-side codes would be my advice. [quote]If a standard makes it impossible to create necessary content that meets the standard because of capricious and inflexible rules, then that is a problem with the standard, not the content.[/quote] I'm afraid the problem here is the developer ... not the standards. The developer would be lazy and inflexable ... chosing not to do things a better way. [quote]Again, some functionality cannot be simulated with text alternatives. Therefore, this is not an adequate solution.[/quote] I won't argue with that statement. However I will argue that the designer doesn't know how to put abstract thought to concrete form. Why then is the developer with a job? If the SCORM could meet WCAG2 as it is currently written then why are we having this discussion? Perhaps someone can tell me what has been done with the following in my absence. * supported in multiple, independently-developed implementations of the browsers, user agents, and assistive technologies. * supported across multiple operating system platforms (i.e., Microsoft, Macintosh, or Unix - not Win98/2000/XP) [quote]To rule out the use of Flash because it does not provide cross-platform accessibility, means, in many cases, making other sacrifices in terms of usability and functionality.[/quote] Flash does not make a web site usable. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It also does not make a web site accessible ... it does the exact opposite. Or should we say the developer fails to develop systems that make their web sites and applications accessible. I'm not against Flash when it is used for what it should be used for. It does not belong in making an entire web site. Assuming that it does because Macromedia says it can be assumes incorrectly. [quote]No, because in some instances, it provides the most functionality and usability for the greatest number of people.[/quote] That is a farce. Why even have WAI? We were fine with the greatest number of people prior to WAI. Your argument is a full of holes. My words from a previous message: [quote]As for Flash being accessible to all users, I will challenge that with one simple statement. I can't hear your application talking and there is no way I can read words not in print.[/quote] Flash developers assume more than they know. Put your audio presentation in Flash and I can't hear it. Put your audio instructions in Flash and I can't hear it. Oops, did someone forget to tell Macromedia that Flash Player doesn't print words it finds in a binary audio presentation? Another reason Flash is not accessible. Assumptions have been made that the minority should not be considered because they are not important enough to have concerns about. Here we have a college ignoring the rules of Section 504, 508 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. They ignore the rules and laws simply because of inexperience and refusal to comply with standards. Lee Roberts http://www.roserockdesign.com http://www.applepiecart.com PS: We all forget sometimes and sometimes we just hit the reply button by error. No problems on the multiple copies. But I do suppose I need to return to the weekly phone conversations. Perhaps someone can forward me, off list, the phone number and pass code. -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Fentress, Robert Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:36 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary? Lee, First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to engage in this dialogue with me. I think this is an important issue, and I hope that a clearer explication of the issues involved will not be of benefit to me alone, but may also help others on the list who have dealt with this. -----Original Message----- From: Lee Roberts [mailto:leeroberts@roserockdesign.com] [quote] For a web page or web application to be accessible it must meet all basic requirements. If it can't meet those requirements then there is no way it will be accessible. [/quote] Frankly, I don't care if something meets a standard. I care if it is accessible to users with a variety of needs. If a standard makes it impossible to create necessary content that meets the standard because of capricious and inflexible rules, then that is a problem with the standard, not the content. Please explain to me how you can create modular learning content that tracks and responds to the user and can be moved between learning management systems without some sort of client-side scripting. [quote] Requiring a person to use your chosen set of AT tells me the person has no idea what accessible is. That's as 1990s as telling me I have use IE because the designer junked up their page with a bunch of Microsoft codes. I didn't do business with those organizations and I won't do business with them now. [/quote] Creating complex web applications is not the same as creating web pages and, while it does not necessarily require a person to use a particular AT, it does require them to use something that will interpret the code written. Again, some functionality cannot be simulated with text alternatives. Therefore, this is not an adequate solution. [quote] Whether SCORM claims they developed their standards to be WCAG compliant or not is not the issue. It isn't WCAG compliant if it requires that I use one specific AT. The other standards support that argument. [/quote] It doesn't require any particular AT. As I interpret the standards, SCORM does not meet WCAG 1.0 (not even priority 1), but it does conform to Section 508 and could meet WCAG 2.0, as currently written. It is impossible to create an adequate text alternative for the javascript-based functionality it provides. [quote] Flash fails compliance testing because it requires the user to be on Microsoft platforms. So, until Macromedia, whom has full control of how their plugin operates, makes the plug-in compliant it won't meet the basic requirements of accessibility. So, no organization has the right to require specific AT to use their web site or web applications. That's what the WCAG standards are all about. Developers don't have choice, the user has choice. Developer's rights end where the user's rights begin. My rights as a user out-weigh the rights of the developer. [/quote] Accessibility is not, to my mind, an either/or. It exists along a continuum. Some functionality cannot be achieved by anything as well as with Flash. To rule out the use of Flash because it does not provide cross-platform accessibility, means, in many cases, making other sacrifices in terms of usability and functionality. Do I think Flash should be accessible on all platforms? Yes, of course. Am I going to stop using it because it is only accessible on a PC in IE? No, because in some instances, it provides the most functionality and usability for the greatest number of people. Dogmatic proscriptive assertions will do nothing to encourage developers to create accessible content. Recognizing the ambiguities and trade-offs inherent in any kind of accessible design and having an open and frank dialogue about the best way to create accessible content will. [quote] As for Flash being accessible to all users, I will challenge that with one simple statement. I can't hear your application talking and there is no way I can read words not in print. [/quote] I'm sorry. I don't follow what you are saying here. Could you clarify what you mean? Rob P.S. I'm sorry for sending multiple copies of messages to you, Lee. I am still getting used to the fact that responses to messages on this list go to individuals and not the list.
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2004 01:44:41 UTC