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: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:35:28 -0600
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A798CD2@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "lisa seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Lisa, I can give you a better answer about whether screen readers can
"get to" the content of the page if you can give me a specific task to
try.  I use JAWS 5.0 with IE 6.
 
I went to the page just now and was able to get a frames list JAWS
keystroke="Ins+F9) that included four frame.  The frames are called
Site, top bar, workarea frame, and bar frame.  These aren't especially
useful titles, but they *are* titles and even if they're automatically
generated could presumably be programmed to be more informative.
 
JAWS is unable to report some of the links on the page, possibly because
they're coded using numerical values (I haven't looked at the source) to
represent characters in a non-Western alphabet.
 
Some of the graphics appear to have alt text-e.g., "Empty folder."
Again not very informative, but htat's not so much a Javascript problem
as a a Javascriptor problem-i.e., it's the human who wrote the
Javascript, not the language.
 
John
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of lisa seeman
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 1:52 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: questions on java scripts, life, the universe and WCAG 2.0...
 
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/
<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 Saturday, 29 November 2003 16:35:43 GMT

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