E-mail List Archives
Thread: Captivate Debate
Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)
From: Michael Moore
Date: Tue, Jun 28 2011 7:30AM
Subject: Captivate Debate
No previous message | Next message →
Sorry if this shows up more than once.
We are having a debate about whether Captivate content can ever be
considered to be compliant with the section 508 standards.
The debate is centered around the application of 1194.21 (g). Applications
shall not override user-selected contrast and color selections and other
individual display attributes.
Per Adobe’s VPAT for Captivate “The Player does not inherit user display
settings.”
On the other hand the Adobe VPAT claims compliance with 1194.22 (m). When a
web page requires that an applet, plug-in, or other application be present
on the client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link
to a plug-in or applet that complies with §1194.21(a) through (l). Our
interpretation of this standard is that there needs to be a link to the
player and that the player must meet the requirements of 1194.21.
Are we correct in assuming that Captivate output should be tested against
1194.21? And if 1194.21 does apply would any Flash output meet that
requirement?
We have confirmed that user settings in Windows for color and font size are
not inherited in by the player.
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Tue, Jun 28 2011 9:45AM
Subject: Re: Captivate Debate
← Previous message | Next message →
The debate is centered around the application of 1194.21 (g). Applications shall not override user-selected contrast and color selections and other individual display attributes.
Per Adobe's VPAT for Captivate "The Player does not inherit user display settings."
I'll also note that we provided the rating of "Does Not Support" for this item. However, this isn't necessarily the end of the story. Compliance with Section 508 standards is based on what is implemented and delivered, not necessarily what comes out of the box automatically. Since a captivate movie is offered most often as a part of a web page the question is whether the author can provide a compliant experience overall - so we know that the Flash Player doesn't respond to Windows system color changes, and this has nothing to do with the Captivate output except that Captivate uses Flash as an output format. Captivate does offer the ability to customize the colors and contrast on the authoring side, so an author could offer a few color/contrast options for users to choose from, either as a separate but parallel version (e.g. provide a link to "view this presentation with high contrast white-on-black color scheme") or if the author was skilled in Flash development they can export the Captivate project to be opened in the Flash authoring tool for custom work to provide a color-switcher feature in the output. Obviously, both of these represent extra work.
On the other hand the Adobe VPAT claims compliance with 1194.22 (m). When a web page requires that an applet, plug-in, or other application be present on the client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link to a plug-in or applet that complies with §1194.21(a) through (l). Our interpretation of this standard is that there needs to be a link to the player and that the player must meet the requirements of 1194.21.
We need to separate "player" as in "flash player" and "Captivate output content player". 22(m) refers to the Flash Player, and this is met by the Captivate output. The wording of this standard is confusing, but that is because it was written before people were thinking about web applications seriously. If this meant that you needed to link to the Captivate "player" would you need to provide a link to the URL that you are already at and viewing the player? That wouldn't make sense - this means the Flash Player. I feel that this is built into the code for the object element in the HTML, but if you feel more comfortable linking to the Flash Player installer, create an HTML link to here: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/fp_distribution3.html
Hope this helps.
AWK
From: Michael Moore
Date: Wed, Jun 29 2011 7:18AM
Subject: Re: Captivate Debate
← Previous message | No next message
Thanks Andrew,
This will help us develop some policy around how to deal with Flash based
content. We are looking at attempting to either apply some scripting
resources to make the results more flexible or to providing alternative
content. I definitly appreciate the quality of the VPATS that are supplied
by Adobe - it was the "does not support" for that item that got us thinking
about this issue in the first place. Thank your team for helping us not miss
that issue.
Mike
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> The debate is centered around the application of 1194.21 (g). Applications
> shall not override user-selected contrast and color selections and other
> individual display attributes.
>
> Per Adobe's VPAT for Captivate "The Player does not inherit user display
> settings."
>
> I'll also note that we provided the rating of "Does Not Support" for this
> item. However, this isn't necessarily the end of the story. Compliance with
> Section 508 standards is based on what is implemented and delivered, not
> necessarily what comes out of the box automatically. Since a captivate
> movie is offered most often as a part of a web page the question is whether
> the author can provide a compliant experience overall - so we know that the
> Flash Player doesn't respond to Windows system color changes, and this has
> nothing to do with the Captivate output except that Captivate uses Flash as
> an output format. Captivate does offer the ability to customize the colors
> and contrast on the authoring side, so an author could offer a few
> color/contrast options for users to choose from, either as a separate but
> parallel version (e.g. provide a link to "view this presentation with high
> contrast white-on-black color scheme") or if the author was skilled in Flash
> development they can export the Captivate project to be opened in the Flash
> authoring tool for custom work to provide a color-switcher feature in the
> output. Obviously, both of these represent extra work.
>
> On the other hand the Adobe VPAT claims compliance with 1194.22 (m). When a
> web page requires that an applet, plug-in, or other application be present
> on the client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link
> to a plug-in or applet that complies with §1194.21(a) through (l). Our
> interpretation of this standard is that there needs to be a link to the
> player and that the player must meet the requirements of 1194.21.
>
> We need to separate "player" as in "flash player" and "Captivate output
> content player". 22(m) refers to the Flash Player, and this is met by the
> Captivate output. The wording of this standard is confusing, but that is
> because it was written before people were thinking about web applications
> seriously. If this meant that you needed to link to the Captivate "player"
> would you need to provide a link to the URL that you are already at and
> viewing the player? That wouldn't make sense - this means the Flash Player.
> I feel that this is built into the code for the object element in the HTML,
> but if you feel more comfortable linking to the Flash Player installer,
> create an HTML link to here:
> http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/fp_distribution3.html
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> AWK
>