- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 19:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 28 May, Vicente Luque Centeno wrote: > should be considered non accessible for that reason. However, some > evaluation tools say that, as long as I have a link to a video or > song, I MUST publish the alternative. I don't agree with that. It is This is, sadly, a good example why some evaluation tools should be kept locked away :) No, your site is not impacted by the content - and accessibility of content - of external sites. Had you embedded the data, yes, but you link to it. That's fine*. I wouldn't worry about that. I would, however, worry about the quality of the evaluation tool. * Well, it isn't *fine* for those who are left out in the cold, and you might want to think about that bit a little. Consider the consequences of stating that if you link to an inaccessible resource X, you must also publish an accessible version Y though. The tool, it would seem, suggest this - but *it doesn't know who owns X*, does it? A brave tool indeed :) -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/ [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Saturday, 28 May 2005 17:10:48 UTC