- From: <lguarino@adobe.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:07:43 -0700
- To: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Cc: "'Tina Holmboe'" <tina@greytower.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Loretta: > 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? > > Roberto Scano: > No, the content should be judged not in compilance because if baseline > includes Flash, the Flash content must be accessible not only in > Windows + IE + Jaws or WindowEyes but also with other browsers. Otherwise, we > are making like some web sites that wrote : optimized for IE 800x600 > 16 million colours. Roberto, All you are saying is that you reject my hypothesis that there can be a baseline that includes Flash. The reason for trying to separate out the baseline issues is because user agents and assistive technologies are moving targets, and we'd like the guidelines to continue to be applicable as the environment changes, no matter how slowly. Could you try to answer the question that I posed, that is, if there is a such a constrained environment that permits Flash (perhaps the computing environment for some company), should lack of HTML validity of <embed> disquality such content if it satisfies all the rest of WCAG2 ? It is an important question in its own right, without the entanglement of the current state of user agents. Loretta
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 18:08:09 UTC