- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:54:12 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Roberto, At 10:20 4/11/2005, Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: <blockquote> I think that the problem is specifically vendor-oriented. Flash for accessibility features (that is available only with ms windows + jaws/hpr and IE) need to have <embed> element because they have implemented MSAA for work with embed. </blockquote> Isn't this an element of "practical reality" that can be used as an argument against requiring valid code at level 1? How does using <embed> harm accessibility? Should WCAG ban content just because it uses a certain technology or because the content (in spite of accessibility features of the technology) is inaccessible? <blockquote> (...) Sorry for the tune of this post, but it's incredible that we need to force wcag 2.0 for conform with a plugin that is accessible only in one OS and with a specific configuration (i don't know what would happen if the company was Microsoft instead of Macromedia). </blockquote> Based on what you write above, it is not "Microsoft instead of Macronmedia" but "Microsoft and Macromedia" because the former company is responsible for MSAA. Regards, Christophe Strobbe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 10:55:36 UTC