- From: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:59:51 -0800
- To: "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>, "WCAG WG mailing list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi there, This is an old debate that we have had in detail before in multiple working groups. The point here is that there are times where we all assume the vendors on all sides are working in perfect harmony with the specification, OS, Tool maker and AT. The specific reference here is related to use of <embed> with Flash. Recently, there has been activity around creating code that embeds Flash content in a page that follows standards. From a validity standpoint, it works great. However, there is a negative consequence here, this valid markup renders the Flash content inaccessible using that screen reader. After a few chats with the AT maker, it is clear that a simple fix is not forthcoming. This creates a situation where the author must choose, accessibility versus validity. From Macromedia's standpoint, it would be terrific if the issue did not exist. However, it does. It is interesting that Makoto raises the issue of practicality on the same day that this old debate has resurfaced. This is precisely the issue here. When we looked at this issue for the current release, I advocated on behalf of the use of embed because to change our default techniques would have a very negative consequence for people with disabilities. Cheers, Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gez Lemon Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:46 AM To: Andrew Kirkpatrick Cc: WCAG WG mailing list Subject: Re: Validity HI Andrew, On 04/11/05, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com> wrote: > The assumption here is the the assistive technologies actually use the > code. That wasn't my assumption, although I will admit I had assumed that our guidelines weren't based on Microsoft's accessibility architecture. There is no way to assume a useful DOM if the markup isn't valid. > Not all validation errors are of the same level of importance to > accessibility. We have specific guidelines and techniques for important > errors, but most validation errors are insignificant. I've seen pages > with hundreds of accessibility issues that actual users find quite > accessible and useable. Are you sure the guidelines capture every validity error that might result in an accessibility barrier? How can we be sure we have all bases covered? Is it not simpler to merely require validity? More to the point, what exactly is the problem with validity? As so many people feel quite passionately that validity will kill the guidelines, although there's no evidence of this as it's in WCAG 1.0, I feel I'm missing some fundamental point. Thrashing out which validity errors cause accessibility barriers and those that don't isn't getting us very far, and is probably the reason this guideline is nowhere near ready. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 15:00:25 UTC