- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:27:14 -0500
- To: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
About the plug-ins, viewers, and or players - most of all of them are free, most of them are available on many platforms, and some of them even have accessible versions to their user interface if not also the content. >> >> > ... but I mention the Linux to >> >illustrate that any solutions MUST be OS neutral and not depend on >> >proprietary software that is not provided free. >> >> I don't understand what free has to do meeting the 508 or W3C standards. I > >it does state in 508, that if something is required to view or use a site >a link must be provided to allow a download at no additional cost. The actual 508 standard only says: [1] "1194.22 (m) When a web page requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be present on the client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link to a plug-in or applet that complies with §1194.21(a) through (l)." Nothing there nor in the rest of the 508 guidance about "no additional costs" except for the case of documentation. So the 508 claim that plug-ins must be provided at no additional costs is misinformation. Meet the 508 software standards part - yes, free - no. >> also don't understand why something must be OS neutral to meet a standard. > >because a standard cannot be proprietary More misinformation. The 508 standard actually implies the use of "proprietary standards when it says: [2] 1194.21 (f) "Textual information shall be provided through operating system functions for displaying text. The minimum information that shall be made available is text content, text input caret location, and text attributes." >> By the way, since LYNX supports FRAMES, if authors put usable titles on >> them, would that end the debate about frames? > >probably Great! that is the minimum standard in my opinion. >> >> Also if LYNX supported JavaScript, would that end the debate about >> JavaScript? > >so far as I know Lynx does not support JavaScript > >Bob Exactly my point. So why aren't you (and JavaScript naysayers) putting pressure on the Lynx developers to add support for JavaScript? My point is that it would be more cost effective to add JavaScript support to Lynx that to re-design all the sites that already use JavaScript. JavaScript is already a published standard in ECMA Script. So the standard is public, just not supported by Lynx. Lynx does not support all the requirements in the W3C User Agent Accessibility Guidelines either. Sounds like a good grant proposal. [1] 508 plug-in guidance http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm#(m) [2] Text via OS functions http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.21.htm#(f) Regards, Phill
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 18:28:26 UTC