W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:49:16 +0200
To: <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200407201546156.SM02492@Inbox>

Same message, same ideas :)

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Lee Roberts"<leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
    Inviato: 20/07/04 21.35.56
    A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?
    
    
     
    Michael Cooper says:
    [quote]Using some HTML examples, if I have a Flash or SVG
    plugin in my document, and I use the accessibility
    features of those technologies, do I still need to provide
    text alternative content for the <object> element that
    loads them?[/quote]
    
    First and foremost, prove to me that Flash works on
    anything other than Microsoft platforms.
    
    It does not work on Mac or Linux.  Therefore it is not
    accessible and therefore must have a text alternate
    version.  Don't confuse yourselves with propaganda.
    
    Lee Roberts
    http://www.roserockdesign.com
    http://www.applepiecart.com
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
    [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael
    Cooper
    Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 2:08 PM
    To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
    Subject: RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?
    
    
    This is, I think, an oversight in the guidelines, not a
    deliberate position.
    I agree with Robert's position that if scripts, etc. are
    supported and accessible, there is no need for text
    alternatives, but think the guidelines need to address
    this issue specifically rather than leave it unsaid. 
    
    There is actually a general issue here that applies
    clearly to WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 6.3 but also applies to
    other issues. For me, the question is, for any non-text
    content, if that content type provides accessibility
    features, should the guidelines require that a text
    alternative also be provided? Using some HTML examples, if
    I have a Flash or SVG plugin in my document, and I use the
    accessibility features of those technologies, do I still
    need to provide text alternative content for the <object>
    element that loads them? If I have client side scripts
    doing something interesting on the page, but those scripts
    are accessible (assuming they're supported) do I have to
    provide text alternatives in a <noscript>? I would
    interpret that the requirement to provide text alternative
    for most images would be triggered by the fact that the
    .gif and .jpeg formats don't support embedded
    accessibility features - but I would argue that if an
    image format did, this question would be equally
    applicable to that case.
    
    In considering these questions as applied to the
    guidelines, we also have to keep in mind that we're being
    technology-independent. So, we shouldn't assume that the
    non-text content is a "plugin" to an otherwise textual
    document, as would be the case with HTML loading Flash or
    something. For instance, an XHTML document could just have
    SVG appear in the middle of it with no special <object>
    element needed to load it up - and therefore no hooks for
    a text alternative besides what is provided by SVG itself.
    The issue of differential or unpredicatable assistive
    technology for mixed media like this is one we need to
    have some kind of statement about but can't make a priori
    assumptions about.
    
    The answer I've heard from the group in the past is that
    non-text content should have a label associated with it
    (under Guideline 1.1) even if we expect it to be supported
    and it has accessibility features. I guess it would be up
    to Techniques then to describe how to provide that label
    in specific cases. But I'm not sure if that is a
    future-proofed position, so I think we should consider it
    some more. And even if that is the group's position, I
    don't think the Guidelines are clear enough about that, so
    we need to say something more.
    
    I support going in the direction Robert saw us going, but
    I raise these issues to make sure we've thought the whole
    thing through.
    
    Michael
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Fentress, Robert [mailto:rfentres@vt.edu]
    > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 11:05 AM
    > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
    > Subject: Javascript alternatives not necessary?
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > I just noticed there is no 2.0 equivalent to the WCAG
    1.0 guideline:
    > 
    > 6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets,
    or other 
    > programmatic objects are turned off or not supported.
    > If this is not possible, provide equivalent information
    on an 
    > alternative accessible page. [Priority 1]
    > 
    > Is this intentional?  If so, it is wonderful.  6.3
    always struck me as 
    > quite unreasonable in that it made conforming to other
    standards such 
    > as SCORM, which uses javascript as part of its
    specification, 
    > impossible.  The important thing is that the scripts are
    made 
    > accessible, particularly by allowing keyboard access to
    all the 
    > functionality, not that all functionality be available
    when javascript 
    > is not supported.  That makes many kinds of web
    applications 
    > impractical.
    > 
    > Sorry if this is ground that has already been covered,
    but I am new to 
    > the list and wanted to make sure I am understanding the
    standard 
    > correctly.
    > 
    
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2004 15:49:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC