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

RE: Questions about WCAG 6.3

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:47:32 -0500
To: <joelsanda@yahoo.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001701bf9803$c3a29840$53fe330a@msde>
Dear Joel,

A couple more quick questions / comments inline, after much snippage...

> Personally, I think #6.3 should be moved to Level AA,
> and not be a Level A requirement.

Based on what?  Level A (wrt 6.3) means that some uses of some JavaScript
means that some people will NOT be able to access the page/site.  It's clear
and unambiguous.  The fact that you have done a great job ensuring
compatibility with your JavaScript is commendable, but does NOT warrant
changing priority level!  Most coders of JavaScript will not be as careful
as you!

> Indeed, our reliance on
> JavaScript ensures our CSS site is accessible to an
> even larger audience than not - it works in the nearly
> 17 different versions of 4.x Netscape browsers and all
> 4.x IE browsers on Mac and IE.

Okay, but did you check usability with Lynx?  What is the rational for
dismissing this browser, but not certain versions of IE / Navigator?

> I really want a site
> that conforms to the WCAG Level A, at a minimum, but
> #6.3 would mean a complete re-engineer of our current
> product, making our pursuit of Level A Conformance an
> academic question instead of a reality.

6.3 does NOT require you to give up JavaScript, just that your site is
useable without it!  I know a number of folks who disable scripting on their
browsers -- since the bad JavaScript and Java people publish would routinely
crash their computers!  I have no idea how common place this practice is,
but I bet it is more popular than the folks at Sun would like to admit!

Cheers,
Bruce Bailey
Received on Monday, 27 March 2000 10:50:56 GMT

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