W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 3.)

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 14:41:13 -0000
Message-ID: <017c01c136e1$fa0a3900$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Not much here in part 3... which is the final part - much relief I'm


I'm not sure I understand the point of the example, it's clearly an
example of poor accessibility, and poor script usage - but doesn't
highlight this fact - why's it there?

On the auto accessibility checks, these are hard to do with the
scripting, when there is a firm set of guidelines, It's something I would
be interested in creating but I'm not sure of the viability of creating a
tool, it's certainly not trivial.

Page Valet - http://valet.webthing.com reports the "javascript:" pseudo
protocol problem in it's
Other Errors and Potential Errors section - see:

A brief look at the sites listed in 6.1, shows again some limitations in
the functionality of the script, Which I see as a problem - scripting
errors are an accessibility issue, and they need to be addressed.  Then
there's a site such as
http://www.smsu.edu/web/access/Checkpoint_l/CP_l.htm which appears to
advocate the use of the javascript pseudo-protocol - a deliberate
accessibility flaw to my mind. Of course they could easily be the best

The minutes at:
Shows a fair degree of missing knowledge of how script is currently
implemented, and what is practical, and what script is being used for
today - of course the unstructured minutes don't really allow for
sensible comments although it does point to as an example of
A page which to my mind is inaccessible and contains some scripting
confusions and bad practices  "javascript:document.write()" - doesn't at
all do what the author probably thinks for example.

Scripting is an area I think the WAI group needs to get some more
specific expertise on board.

(I'd think hard about including the book resources, the
comp.lang.javascript FAQ doesn't recommend any due to their general
weakness in compatibility between browsers, I'm also managing to get a
reasonable number of quotes off authors who agree that certain chapters
are completely flawed.)

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 10:46:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC