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

RE: Questions about WCAG 6.3

From: Joel Sanda <joelsanda@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000324224832.2887.qmail@web2203.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>, Web Accessibility Initiative <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: joelsanda@yahoo.com
Wow...some great comments, and late on a Friday
afternoon!

I had suspected I was missing the boat <GRIN>. Now
that I've taken my bath....

One more question: how many organizations will
redesign their sites to work with browsers that don't
have JavaScript enabled?

ServerSide code can take the place of some client side
JavaScript - if an IT department has the resources to
implement more servers and IT people and the necessary
developers to recode their Internet based
applications.

In my opinion, #6.3 will probably be, hands down, the
largest reason most developers/organizations give up
on accessible web design - or ignore it for that
reason.

It's tough enough to build online Applications that
work in IE and Netscape. I think it's a little
unreasonable to assume developers are going to now
ditch all JavaScript - which means recoding a whole
lot of stuff - to conform to Level A.

I know that #6.3 doesn't preclude the use of
JavaScript, but it means that any site's functionality
based upon that scripting has to be rebuilt to not use
the JavaScript. And client side JS is popular for a
very important reason: money. It costs to add servers
to support server-side scripting. 

I understand that WAI is about Internet Appliances as
much as disability, but Internet Appliances are not
advanced or prolific enough to argue #6.32 is doable.
I browse the web at home and from my Palm and cell
phone - I don't think it's reasonable for me to ask
Amazon.com to rebuild their delivery system to work
with my Palm browser. It would be nice, but I'm in a
minority sending and reading email from my Palm and
Cell Phone.

Just my two cents, well, maybe ten cents by now.

Joel Sanda
joelsanda@yahoo.com

--- Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net> wrote:
> Sorry, but you are missing the boat on this one!
> 
> Adherence to 6.3 is of critical importance. 
> JavaScript dependent web pages
> are probably the second biggest accessibility
> obstacle faced by persons with
> disabilities!  (Missing ALT content has got to be
> first, but bear in mind
> that it is disingenuous to rank P1 checkpoints in
> this fashion.)
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Joel Sanda
> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:44 PM
> > To: W3C/WAI
> > Subject: Questions about WCAG 6.3
> >
> >
> > Hi;
> >
> > I've got some questions (well, alright, problems:)
> > with WCAG 6.3. Wondering if anyone can shed some
> light
> > on that requirement for me.
> >
> > 1. Since no browser supports all WCAG
> requirements,
> > it's impossible to build a site that is 100%
> compliant
> > with all WCAG levels AND functions in all
> browsers.
> >
> > 2. Since the best support for the WCAG lies in
> > Internet Explorer 4.x, it seems logical most
> people
> > looking for an accessible site will hit it in
> IE4.x.
> > This is born out by my research of screen readers.
> > JAWs is the most popular, and that runs with IE4.x
> or
> > higher. HomePage Reader requires a 4.x version of
> > Netscape.
> >
> > 3. Give 1. and 2., I argue that the scripting
> > requirement 6.3 is far too restrictive.
> >
> > In my environment, we rely on JavaScript to ensure
> > forms are filled out correctly and the database
> > doesn't get cluttered with incorrect information.
> In
> > fact, anyone using a database and a form will
> probably
> > use JavaScript to ensure forms are filled out
> > correctly. Imagine the chaos with eCommerce if a
> site
> > couldn't ensure it's users entered data correctly.
> > This site would be accessible, but one mistake and
> the
> > user is out of their money, the product, and the
> > vendor and shopper have to solve a problem that
> could
> > have been prevented with JavaScript.
> >
> > That in and of itself is an aid to accessibility:
> it
> > gives people two chances to fill out forms - their
> > data entry pass and the verification pass.
> Usually,
> > the JavaScript error checking gives more detailed
> > information to the user if there is an error.
> >
> > I know there's the component of "universal
> > accessibility", but IMHO #6.3 is just far too
> > restrictive for most companies to consider.
> >
> > Thoughts? Am I missing the boat on this one?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Joel Sanda
> > joelsanda@yahoo.com
> 
> 

=====
Joel Sanda
Rocky Mountains | United States
---------------------------------
joelsanda@yahoo.com  |  Yahoo! Messenger: joelsanda
---------------------------------
 Nature is indifferent to our love, but never unfaithful
- Edward Abbey

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Received on Friday, 24 March 2000 17:48:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:48 GMT