On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 11:42 -0800, Matt Morgan-May wrote:
> If "evil" is all you have to say about Flash, then there's not much that can
> be said. It's clearly not worth taking a reasoned approach to convince you
> that it has merit as a classroom tool, despite the thousands of teachers and
> millions of students using it.

Thousands and millions of teachers/students also use MS Powerpoint and
MS Word, too (paid for by hapless taxpayers), and we've all seen the
horrible uneducated results of that, I'm sure... We web developers use
the term "angry fruit salad" to describe it.

> > Adobe could do a better job, the makers of assistive
> > technology could do a better job
> 
> Great. I'm all ears. What should we do? So far, the impression that I get is
> that we should give up. Flash being evil and all. But since we continue to
> improve our accessibility, please feel free to send me your ideas.

In my opinion, the next improvement Adobe Flash needs, if it wants to be
acceptable to at least this member of the Web Standards Group audience,
would be for Adobe to create the definitive Flash specification, release
it under a royalty-free and patent unencumbered license, and try to get
ISO certification (without buying/badgering national bodies, a la
Microsoft). 

Then there could be competition in the provision of tools for Flash
(rather than the current Adobe monopoly), and I, for one, would be
willing to consider using it... where it's appropriate.

> > but there is very little that the man in the middle can do
> 
> This is the heart of the matter. It's just not true. Flash authors can do a
> lot to be directly accessible to assistive technology. And bringing it all
> back to the original message here, that's what BCAT's developers are trying
> to do. What's wrong with more people producing more accessible Flash
> content, other than you disliking Flash?

BCAT's developers have a serious nerve asking the WSG community to
provide feedback on a site they've built, but then require that
a) people compromise their freedom by signing an NDA to even view the
site, and then add insult to injury by 
b) making the terms of the NDA available only in a non-standard,
proprietary MS Word DOC format. 

Frankly, I'm amazed that some people (the BCAT guy) have so little
appreciation for the audience they're entreating to give them free
consultation.

Dave

-- 
David Lane = Egressive Ltd = d...@egressive.com = m:+64 21 229 8147
p:+64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents
http://egressive.com ==== we only use open standards: http://w3.org
Effusion Group Founding Member =========== http://effusiongroup.com




*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*******************************************************************

Reply via email to