Hi, Jonathan- The logo contest has nothing to do with my being on the SVG WG, despite Ronan's implied connection. This is not something done under the aegis of the W3C, but rather as the efforts of several companies for the sake of SVG evangelism.
Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: > > Doug for instance chooses which parts of 1.2 will be acceptable. > What research says "Most people would find an audio component > annoying, " > Audio is clearly a very successful function of flash. evidently > macromedia don't concur, and it seems neither do adobe. What part of "logo" do you not understand? I'm not saying that audio has no place in SVG (obviously), I'm saying it has no place in *an SVG logo*! Please stop deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I am saying. Evidently, Adobe (who recently bought Macromedia) *does* concur, since their logos don't use sound: http://www.adobe.com/images/shared/download_buttons/get_flash_player.gif http://www.adobe.com/images/get_adobe_reader.gif http://www.adobe.com/images/get_flash_player.gif They do provide a text falllback in the way they present them, as much as is possible with a raster image: <img src="/images/shared/download_buttons/get_flash_player.gif" alt="Get Adobe Flash Player"> > By all means contact WAI and seek direction, but don't think that > suggesting that I should, excuses the SVG WG from taking such action > themselves. Nor does your personal intuition excuse you from facing facts. My conversations with you have convinced me that you have not read or understood the SVG specifications enough to comment on their accessibility features. SVG 1.1 has reasonable accessibility features, which I have explained at length to you in the past. SVG Tiny 1.2 makes a huge leap forward in this area... again, as I have painstakingly explained to you recently. You have either forgotten or ignored these explanations, but the evidence is clear throughout the specification. You may have developer experience that you find frustrating, but this is a problem with the *implementations*, not with the *specifications*. If a viewer/browser does not adequately implement the accessibility features designed into SVG, then it is not a conforming SVG viewer, and you should file bug reports with that UA. I really don't want to be so blunt, but by spreading disinformation, you have left me no choice. You are speaking from a position of ignorance when it comes to accessibility features in SVG. Until you bother reading the spec, I see no point in continuing any discussion. Regards- -Doug ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ---- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
