[w3c-wai-ig] <none>

>> I wrote to AOL using its e-mail address listed on its accessibility web
page
>> (AOLAccessibility@aol.com)
>> and received the bounced message below.  Apparently, AOL access is not
>> functioning either as an e-mail address or as a company concept.
>>
>> Its new media player does not have a means to control volume that is
>> accessible to the blind.  it is controlled using a slide bar and mouse
only.

>I do know that the aolaccessibility@aol.com address is still functioning.  I
>don't know why your message bounced, but I know from my contact at AOL that
>they are aware of the issue that you raise and I'm cc'ing them on this
>message so they can contact you directly.

I dont know about the email address and if AOL is aware of the issue and
is working on it or not...  I am taking your word for it.

>Keyboard and screen reader control of embedded media players is uniformly
>poor, and this version of the aol media player is no exception.  The
>Quicktime player, when embedded will allow some control of the media player
>controls (volume, next/previous song, etc.), but no embedded player gives
>the same level of control as the standalone version of the same player.

Why not?  It is not good enough to say dont worry about it because that is
the way they all are (inaccessible).  And Kelly is trying to alert AOL of
IT'S inaccessible embedded media player.  What you wrote here gives the
feeling that since noone has attempted to fix the problem, it is ok to be
inaccessible until one (or more) comes along that is accessible.  This way
of thinking (whether or not you meant it that way) is one reason most of
the web is still inaccessible and businesses not moving to rectify it. If
everyone else is not accessible, then why should I bother until I am in
the minority.  And with the majority thinking that way, accessiblity will
not be an important issue with them.

>I know AOL will be interested in hearing your observations and wishes, but
>you might also want to raise the issue with the radio station that is using
>the player and ask that they provide a link to open the stream in a
>standalone player.

Very good point!

>I agree that this is an issue that should be addressed, and the fact that
>other embedded players doesn't provide justification for the
>inaccessibility
>of the media player, but I don't think that a blanket dismissal of AOL's
>accessibility efforts is appropriate.

I have a problem here.... dissmissal no, but if it is inaccessible on one
thing... it is STILL inaccessible.

-Steve

Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 17:45:56 UTC