W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

Review of WCAG 2.0 checkpoint 1.1 (and 2 a bit)

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:12:56 -0000
Message-ID: <010c01c1a51c$433504e0$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Checkpoint 1.1:

"interactive scripts have a functional equivalent such as a form" I don't
believe a
form is a substitute for an interactive script.  A form is just a
user interface, which requires some action, that action may be
client-side script, but for full accessibility that client side
script, has to be backed up by a server-side script [1].  Of course
such scripts are the minority on the web, most scripts, have an aim of
increased usability, in areas for which server side equivalents just
don't exist.

I believe this checkpoint shouldn't say "such as a form" that is
surely something that belongs in the techniques document.  How a
script is replaced, is purely dependant on the script, a simple
substitution like images or audio files isn't available.

As an illustration, scripting is a very good (and already commonly
used) response to Checkpoint 2.1, yet if you read the document w.r.t to
scripting
itself, it suggests that you have to have replacements of these
scripts even though they are only included to increase the number and
variety of navigation mechanisms.  This is particularly noticable with
the various accessibility testing tools, which trigger on any appearance
of script, another thing which makes developers believe scripting can't
be used (which turns them off the whole idea of accessibility - a view I
run into daily.)

Jim.

[1]Sensibly it should be the reverse with Client Side only added as a
usability enhancement of a server side script.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 16:17:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT