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

RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?

From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:55:15 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040721045518.15DF7A06DC@frink.w3.org>

Robert says {quote]You cannot view an HTML page without an
appropriate user agent of some sort, and yet we don't say
web pages are inaccessible.[/quote]

First, web pages can be viewed using any thing as base as
Lynx to as robust as Firefox.  They can be presented by
Braille displays and screen readers.  If they are
developed correctly!  So, your argumnet about web pages is
full of holes.

User tracking?  Does that provide me, the user, any
information?  No!  It provides you, the site owner,
information.  So, why should I care about your stats?  It
doesn't help me as a blind user.

Just because you're a Flash junkie doesn't mean that Flash
is accessible.  Just because other propogandaist step up
to the plate and say it is doesn't mean that it is.  It
simply isn't.  Anything that requires me to use Windows
and IE isn't accessible and never will be.

Your assumption that 90% of the world are on Windows and
that all disabled persons use Windows is short-sighted.
Linux has accessibility features.  Mac has accessibility
features.  So, until you and Macromedia start gaining
support from better systems don't assume Flash is
accessible.

[quote]There is a reason that standard uses javascript as
a requirement: because, combined with an API adapter, it
allows for interoperability of educational content between
learning management systems.[/quote]

Another situation full of holes.  You again assume you
have the right to tell me I have to use your chosen set of
tools.  You have no such rights.  That's what accessbility
is all about ... providing choice.  If you provide no
choice you are inaccessible.  Don't assume your rights as
a site owner over bear my rights as a student or
subscriber to your services.

Lee Roberts

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Fentress,
Robert
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:07 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?


What would be the text alternative for SCORM
javascript-based user tracking?  Or do we just say,
arbitrarily, in my opinion, that SCORM is inaccessible,
because the javascript-based functionality it provides
cannot be replicated with a text alternative.
SCORM-compliant content could work in any browser that
supports javascript and be accessible using only keyboard
access, so why say it is inaccessible?  There is a reason
that standard uses javascript as a requirement: because,
combined with an API adapter, it allows for
interoperability of educational content between learning
management systems.

You cannot view an HTML page without an appropriate user
agent of some sort, and yet we don't say web pages are
inaccessible.  Similarly, you cannot access the
interactivities of javascript without an appropriate user
agent.  What does this have to do with accessibility?

Why should not the fallback position be that content must
be accessible to users with disabilities when they use the
prescribed user agent?  Replicating all content with text
alternatives is unnecessary and practically limits you to
straight HTML and server-side scripting.  Why spend all
that time making an accessible javascript or Flash-based
web application when you are going to have to replicate
all of its functionality with text (which is not even
possible, in many instances)? 

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From:	Lee Roberts [mailto:leeroberts@roserockdesign.com]
Sent:	Tue 7/20/2004 5:36 PM
To:	'Loretta Guarino Reid'
Cc:	w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject:	RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?

Loretta points out that our guidelines should stand the
test of time.

OK.

While we focus upon things like JavaScript, SVG and Flash,
who says that some smart person won't come up with a new
technology?  Each time we have a new technology come up we
are in the same position ... it won't work on all
platforms and in all assistive technology. Therefore, we
must have a fallback position.

That fallback position must be an equivalent text
alternative.

Lee Roberts
http://www.roserockdesign.com
http://www.applepiecart.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 00:55:23 UTC

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