W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: questions on java scripts, life, the universe and WCAG 2.0...

From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:22:22 +1100
Message-ID: <3FC5D05E.20808@acslink.net.au>
To: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

This is a difficult issue to address and not make WCAG look like it is 
anti whatever (in this case javascript).

A lot of web developers just don't understand that their web sites are 
breaking with all the ad blockers and people who turn Javascript off 
because so many sites misused it.  If they don't get that there can be 
lots of usability issues with javascript in their main target group 
sector, they'll never get it that it can cause problems for other less 
main stream user agents.

There is a need to raise this issue and put it in WCAG2, but it needs to 
be done with a lot of support documents and examples to educate people 
as to why this is a problem, only then will they start to understand the 
issues and try and address them in design.

Jonathan has some good stuff at 
http://www.learningdifficulty.org/develop/script-techs.html but we need 
much more than that.

My frustration with WCAG is that there has never been a good bridging 
set of documents to show the general web development community how to 
implement these guidelines in general web SDLC and their ROI.

These issues are still relevant, they shouldn't be removed from WCAG2, 
but we do owe the development community out there a series of technical 
documents that clearly show why these issue need to be addressed and 
support why WCAG recommends them.

I also have to admit that while I liked the original direction WCAG2 was 
going in I do find the more recent drafts becoming more and more vague. 
  I can't be critical because I haven't contributed, and I know the 
people working on it are doing their best.

Just my 1 cent worth (I have one cent less than Chaals:-)

...
Just as a side interest, I filled out a form in Mozilla today, and the 
preliminary form triggered a popup from the submit button to another 
form.  The problem was that this caused an interface with no access to 
Mozilla's Form Manager.  It's very frustrating seeing these types of 
what I call design mistakes. Most web developers don't see or understand 
that behind WCAG is some good old common sense practicality to web design.



Geoff

lisa seeman wrote:

> I am pinging the group on something that has been bothering me for a while.
> A while back it was explained to me that we were removing the priority 1 
> requirement that would bar people form using JavaScript
>  
> In general terms the reasoning was to avoid make WCAG W3C centric, and 
> to remove the until user agent stuff
>  
> However in practice we have a situation were people can be P! compliant 
> and totally inaccessible.
>  
> For example - my variety site http://www.nagish.org.il/ were you have a 
> frame, containing an imbedded frame, were the frame set itself is 
> written by a JavaScript and a useful no frames and no scripts apparently 
> can not be generated by the content management system. (by the way the 
> site owners are good guys, and are working to change it)
>  
> code snippet from second frameset)
>  
> " document.write('<frameset rows="91,*" name="MainFrame"  border="0">') 
> document.write('<frame class="clsFrameTitle" marginwidth="0" 
> marginheight="0" id="idTopBar" name="TopBar" 
> src="frame_title.asp?sp_c=424450463" frameborder="0" scrolling="NO" 
> noresize>')
>   "
>  
> I have two questions
>  
> 1, can a single screen reader out there get to the content of the page 
> as it is now?
> 2, would the site owners be likely to entirely rewrite their site, and 
> change content management systems, if they could still claim some level 
> of accessibility (after all, the alt tags are filled in -the fonts are 
> even relative - the site owner tried to make it accessible)
>  
>  
> The  nagging feeling a the back of my mind,  -  WCAG 2 may be a more 
> testable normative document - but is it a better set of guidelines (not 
> policy) on how to make your website accessible?
>  
>  
>  
> Yup, of course - I am still thinking of the demotion of the guideline on 
> writing clearly...
>  
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
>  
> 
> Visit us at the UB Access <http://www.ubaccess.com/> website
> 
> UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
> 
>  
> 
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2003 05:22:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT