- From: Victor Tsaran <vtsaran@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:07:57 -0800
- To: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
I think in general this is a good idea. However, considering how many Flash movies on the Internet are inaccessible, this may cause more confusion for the end-user if they are suddenly are left with no virtual cursor and, subsequently, no ability to review the movie's content. Victor -----Original Message----- From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steven Faulkner Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 8:09 AM To: W3C WAI-XTECH Cc: w3c-wai-pf@w3.org PF Subject: Use of role="application" for flash files I recieved a question about the use of role="application" for Flash files in web pages. My response was "The role of application does something quite specific, it tells the AT to switch modes (if the AT uses them). It was only added as a landmark role the other day, so I don't think the PF WG have thought about it in terms of its landmark use. It would make sense for a flash movie that is an interactive widget to be given a role="application" i guess..." (http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=106) any thoughts or guidance on this? While on this subject, with the behaviour of some AT being the switching of modes when a container with role="application" is encountered, will this not have a negative effect upon the navigability of landmark roles, as it is my understanding that landmark role navigation will only work in virtual mode? -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 17:14:30 UTC