Re: R: NEW: Issue #1544

We seem to be getting baseline issues and validity issues entangled here.

Let us hypothesize a baseline that includes Flash. Today, that probably means an environment where all users 
are guaranteed access to Window + IE +  JAWS or WindowEyes. If content in that environment makes Flash 
accessible via use of the <embed> object, but otherwise satisfies all the WCAG success criteria, should the 
content be judged not in compliance with WCAG 2 because it does not validate?

If a baseline doesn't include Flash, perhaps because the audience is using non-Windows platforms, then 
alternative content is clearly required for the Flash content.

Loretta

----- Original Message -----
From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:09 am
Subject: Re: R: NEW: Issue #1544

> 
> On 13 Aug, Bob Regan wrote:
> 
> > content using Windows / IE / JAWS. Dropping the <embed> object will
> > cause a significant use case to experience serious problems. At the
> 
>  No, not really; not as long as the *alternative* content is there 
> and  accessible.
> 
>  In the most generic terms possible: not every type of data that some
>  author might want to embed in HTML will be perceivable by all users.
> 
>  We need to focus on how to best supply alternatives; not on how to
>  ensure, come hell or high water, that everyone get the same content
>  wrapped in the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> PS:
> > I know this is going to get me more nasty emails privately...
> 
>  I would hope the participants on this list are more mature than 
> to go
>  after the man and not the ball. I'm sorry to hear that this isn't 
> the  case.
> 
> 
> -- 
> -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
>   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
>   [+46] 0708 557 905
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 17:23:13 UTC