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

Re: Checkpoint 9.3

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:31:25 -0400 (EDT)
To: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
cc: WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208202229060.826-100000@tux.w3.org>

Well, I think that your idea about onlly having useful things is a good one.
But there are lots of people who are sighted, but who use a keyboard instead
of a mouse to navigate. It might be even more useful to these people than
people who use a mouse, since many of them are really using some slow form of
interface that mimics a keyboard, so simplifying navigation is

In general it is difficult to identify combinations of disability taht do or
don't occur - as far as I can tell almost all combinations of requirements do



On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Maurizio Boscarol wrote:

>It's my first post: soon I will write my own short presentation, as
>requested by Wendy. For now, I've in the mess with a redesign, and wish
>to point out a problem with guideline 9 and checkpoint 9.3.
>What if a event handler is used only as a feature useful, say, for
>normal-sighted users? Like the feature of making something (as a
>menu...) *disappear/re-appear in the page with a click*, only for visual
>(and visible by default)? It must be considered a presentational
>manipulation like changing color (changing visibility...), or I have to
>insert an equivalent device-indipendent event handler? Equivalents are
>not recognized by the browser I tested, anyway, and some of them are not
>allowed by xhtml specs for that element (not an 'a').
>I don't think the equivalent is necessary, 'cause the blind-sighted, as
>example, do not take advantage by manipulating the visibility of the
>element! It's not an important functionality, but a visual-only feature
>for some users. Little more than a gadget... ;-)
>My proposal is to better specify the requisite for event-handlers
>device-indipendence in the guideline, including when and why, and some
>"...9.3 For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than
>device-dependent event handlers. [Priority 2] "
>should be:
>"9.3 For scripts that trigger functionality useful to any category of
>user (and/or not for presentational-only variations), specify logical
>event handlers rather than device-dependent event handlers. [Priority 2]
>(Ehm... It can be be improved, i guess...)
>Please consider that very often scripts (DOM compliant, of course...
>;-) ) are used in a variety of ways for creating some interaction
>effect, that are not important for those who are unable to see the
>effect, and even for those who can see they are not important (basic)
>What do you think?
>Thanks for any opinion.
>Maurizio Boscarol
>PS: Different validators give different evaluations on this case... Some
>rapair tools suggested even an invalid markup to solve the problem!...

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ---------------- WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia       fax(fr) +33 4 92 38 78 22
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 22:31:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC