Stephen Stagg wrote:
I'm no expert, but I thought that Flash WAS inaccessible and therefore
when designing a flash-based site, compliance cannot be accomplished in
any other way BUT by having a text alternative.
I totally agree with you (though Flash can be made accessible... kinda).
But if
AFAIK the flash portion of this site was developed with the help of MM to
make it accessible for screen readers.
They *do* offer a text-only version so yes, they can claim to be accessible.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
Felicity Farr said:
Read the article:
Subject: Re: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
AFAIK the flash portion of this site was developed with the help of MM
to
make it accessible for screen readers.
They *do* offer a text-only version so yes, they can claim to be
accessible.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
Felicity Farr said:
Read
Farr
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 10:33 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and it's
instantly accessible.
It's a great message.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Felicity Farr wrote:
I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and
it's instantly accessible.
...and a direct violation of US Section 508:
A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be
provided to make a web site comply with the provisions
Jared Smith wrote:
Felicity Farr wrote:
I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and
it's instantly accessible.
...and a direct violation of US Section 508:
A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall
be provided to make a web site comply
On 12/14/05, Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AFAIK the flash portion of this site was developed with the help of MM to
make it accessible for screen readers.
They *do* offer a text-only version so yes, they can claim to be accessible.
Let's put this into perspective:
- Macromedia
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Jared Smith wrote:
Felicity Farr wrote:
I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and
it's instantly accessible.
...
I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like using a text-only page as an
excuse for otherwise inaccessible content is a violation.
