- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:25:02 -0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
"David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:200212012354.gB1NsVO32314@djwhome.demon.co.uk... > > > There is a side issue of dynamic SVG replacing dynamic HTML, especially for > > pull down menus. Does this have the same accessibility issues, or does it > > overcome some or many of them. > > My view is that SVG is competing with Flash, Unfortunately many users seem to think this, I don't I see them in very different areas of the marketplace (although the area of "publishing on the web" encompasses them both just like HTML/PDF) > Originally, it offered a more semantic way of doing static drawings than > bit maps, but now all the concentration is on animation. I disagree with this, there's still lot of static drawings being done - this is the only sort of SVG that could remotely be called accessible today too IMO. > With likely > authoring tools, authors will be able to easily place components of the > page individually, and are unlikely to place them in a sensible linearised > reading order, because they will probably never see the linearised code. Also because you can't really get a sensible linearised reading order, because the only way to control this also controls the z-index of the element, and the navigation index, so it's near impossible without lots of fiddling. > This is not a new view, although it has been reinforced by the direction > of the discussions on www-svg following the release of the the version 1.1 > draft. 1.1 draft? 1.1 is a Proposed Rec. 1.2 draft is available. Jim.
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 06:32:37 UTC