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

Re: Checkpoint 4.4 Review

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 05:45:50 -0500 (EST)
To: <goliver@accease.com>
cc: <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202180534060.10346-100000@tux.w3.org>
Basically I agree with Graham, but I don't think we can really sort this out
without resolution on baseline requirements.

It seems that at the moment people have a variety ofvalid reasons for not
using browsers that support scripting - for example that in order to do so
they would have to move from a free and workable system to an expensive
combination of assistive technologies and system software.

The fact that almost all browsers are free is not that relevant I don't think
- people need to use system software that in some cases costs a significant
amount of money. On the one hand this might not be much of a barrierin
Denmark - the government will buy the required systems. In other countries it
represents a significant portion of the average wage, something which itself
isn't available to everyone.


Charles McCN

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 goliver@accease.com wrote:

  Me between the *'s

  1 – I think the checkpoint could be worded more
  straightforwardly.    Perhaps

  Checkpoint 4.4 --  Ensure that content is usable with
  default user agent settings and no plug-ins.

  *The wording doesn't work for me, it's too loose +
  difficulty of defining 'default'*

  Checkpoint 4.4   Ensure that all content is readable
  and all function (other than artistic) is preserved
  when stylistic and scripting technologies are not
  supported or are turned off.

  *This is closer for me, but think it needs some
  tweaking. For example, see Jim Thatcher's page [1] on
  Scripts and Applets and Section 508.
  I would agree with his analysis of a fly-over menu

  'If content is exposed with the onMouseOver event for a
  link, then for your site to meet the Section 508
  requirement for scripts, that content must be available
  elsewhere, preferable prominently displayed on the page
  that is opened by that link.'

  To me this is accessible.

  The functionality is not preserved (it can't be) but
  there is 'equivalent availability'.

  So I would prefer something like

  *Ensure that all content remains available when
  stylistic and scripting technologies are not supported
  or are turned off.*


  [1] - http://www.jimthatcher.com/webcoursea.htm

  AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible
  Phone : +64 9 846 6995
  Email : goliver@accease.com

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 05:45:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:40 UTC