W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: Is this site accessible?

From: Dine, Brooke <Brooke.Dine@mail.house.gov>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:51:22 -0500
Message-ID: <49894AC4E8A3D211ACDB0008C75DC8F2025EAE85@hrm09.house.gov>
To: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Bruce:

Thanks for replying.  No, I don't have authority over either group.  And,
I'll write CommArts for clarification.  

I probably should have slowed down before I posted that question, but when
the article said the site was "accessible," I interpreted it to mean ADA
compliant.  And, I doubt that I'm the only one. Granted I'm more aware of
such issues.  I should ask whether the article's author made that
assumption, or is the webmaster selling the site as accessible.  It does
have a "text only" link and haphazard alt tags.    

My concern, especially after the ADA hearing last week, is that there is a
lot of misinformation or lack of information out there.  I guess the
question comes down to what "accessible" is?  Does a site need to have the
W3C/WAI and Bobby seal of approval?  This is what I've been led to believe.


Like some, I'm new to this field and am trying to get a handle on HTML
coding, scripting languages, etc.  Prior to this position, I managed three
trade association sites with an HTML editor that was two years old.  I had
no clue that accessibility was even an issue.  I'm also completing a Masters
degree in Library & Information Science and there are very few people in my
field that are aware of this issue, and this is a community that is very
attuned to traditional issues of access to information.  

I guess it comes down to the fact that we are all working hard to educate
friends, colleagues, acquaintance, etc. about how accessibility should be
achieved and how it benefits everyone.   Just my two cents.  

Brooke Dine

> ----------
> From: 	Bruce Bailey[SMTP:bbailey@clark.net]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:14 AM
> To: 	Dine, Brooke
> Subject: 	RE: Is this site accessible? 
> 
> Dear Brooke,
> 
> We should probably get back to the list with this, but I will let you do
> that at your discretion.
> 
> The reviewer is using the more common meaning of "accessible", i.e.,
> "available and user friendly", as oppose to what we mean, i.e.,
> "functional
> for persons with disabilities".
> 
> By the WAI / WCAG definition, there is nothing accessible about the site!
> Do you have any reason to believe that anyone at CommArts or Victoria's
> Secret is actually even aware of REAL accessibility issues?  Do you have
> any
> authority over either of them?
> 
> Using JavaScript does not require a "text only" page, but it does require
> a
> meaningful "<noscript>" section.  Basically, one needs to take care that
> any
> real *functionallity* (e.g., links) provided in JavaScript are available
> elsewhere.  If you are just doing mouseover "eye candy" with JavaScript,
> then it is no big deal.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> Bruce Bailey
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dine, Brooke [mailto:Brooke.Dine@mail.house.gov]
> > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 3:48 PM
> > To: Bruce Bailey
> > Subject: RE: Is this site accessible?
> >
> >
> > Bruce:
> >
> > Thanks for responding!  The paragraph that mentions accessibility
> > is in the
> > fifth paragraph.  (You have to select the link for "This week's
> > site on the
> > initial page.  I forgot to mention that.)
> >
> > "Created with HTML and JavaScript the site is completely
> > accessible and the
> > only real problem is that video clips are presented with MS Media
> > Player and
> > it unfortunately doesn't work smoothly on every machine-as a
> > matter of fact
> > it's downright quirky."
> >
> > Having studied the WAI guidelines, I was under the impression
> > that you could
> > only use Javascript if a text alternative was provided.  Is this true?
> Is
> > there a way to make Javascript accessible without it.
> >
> > Any light you could shed on this would be most appreciated.  Thanks
> again.
> >
> > Brooke Dine
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: 	Bruce Bailey[SMTP:bbailey@clark.net]
> > > Sent: 	Monday, February 14, 2000 3:38 PM
> > > To: 	Dine, Brooke
> > > Cc: 	Web Accessibility Initiative
> > > Subject: 	RE: Is this site accessible?
> > >
> > > It's not accessible, not even the home page.
> > >
> > > It spoofs Bobby (not deliberately, Bobby is easily confused by
> > > JavaScript).
> > > I will try to give more details tomorrow.
> > > The "real" URL (that a text browser gets redirected to) is at:
> > > http://www.victoriassecret.com/vsc/index.html?ignorecookies
> > > Paste that URL into Bobby and you will get MUCH different
> > results than the
> > > "false positive" that comes up by default.
> > >
> > > I don't think Bobby's problems with JavaScript are documented
> anywhere,
> > > but
> > > it has come up on this list before.
> > >
> > > Where does the CommArt article say that Victoria's Secret is
> accessible?
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of Dine, Brooke
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 11:36 AM
> > > > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Is this site accessible?
> 
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2000 11:52:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:47 GMT