W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: QUESTION: use of javascript to comply with Sect 508

From: Lubow Scott <lubow_scott@bah.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:31:19 -0500
Message-ID: <3A54C177.3A5BF5E3@bah.com>
To: Beth Skwarecki <skwareea@screech.cs.alfred.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Section 508 specifies performance criteria not design criteria.  The
bottom line is that you can use technologies (JavaScript, DHTML, Java,
etc.) as long as they can be made accessible or you must provide an
equally accessible alternative.
As far as the fly-out menu example, by using layers you can create the
and assistive technologies will be able to read the links just like it
was a list.

--
Scott



David Poehlman wrote:
> 
> I wish this were the case al but in truth, 508 allows for
> implementation of javascript in a slightly different way as I see it
> than wcag does.  The board reversed their decision not to allow
> javascript it seems because they decided to require sites that have a
> time limit to provide a way of opting out of the time limit and they
> needed to allow java script for that to happen.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Beth Skwarecki" <skwareea@screech.cs.alfred.edu>
> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: January 04, 2001 11:55 AM
> Subject: Re: QUESTION: use of javascript to comply with Sect 508
> 
> Not to start another flamewar or anything, but here's the unofficial
> explanation from the FAQ:
> 
> "The 1986 version of Section 508 established non-binding guidelines
> for
> technology accessibility, while the 1998 version creates binding,
> enforceable standards and will incorporate these standards into
> Federal
> procurement regulations. Federal agencies will use these standards in
> all
> their electronic and information technology acquisitions. Consistent
> government-wide standards will make it easier for Federal agencies to
> meet
> their existing obligations to make their technology systems accessible
> to
> people with disabilities, and will promote competition in the
> technology
> industry by clarifying the Federal market's requirement for
> accessibility in
> products intended for general use. The new version of Section 508 also
> establishes a complaint procedure and reporting requirements, which
> further
> strengthen the law."
> 
> Note the bit about "binding, enforceable standards". If it's a law
> that
> people will be held to, you can bet that they're going to try to
> weasel out
> of it. Just wondering about loopholes here, and hopefully the actual
> language includes appropriate definitions.
> 
> --beth
> 
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:44:30AM -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
> > At 10:19 AM 2001-01-04 -0500, Beth Skwarecki wrote:
> > >> Here's the text:
> > >> (l) When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or
> to create
> > >> interface elements, the information provided by the script shall
> be
> > >> identified with functional text that can be read by assistive
> technology.
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^
> > > [identification, not an equivalent?]
> > >
> > >That sounds like it would be valid just to have text saying "if you
> can't
> > >see this DHTML menu, you're missing a really nice DHTML menu.
> Goodbye."
> > >Surely that's not what they mean?!
> > >
> >
> > AG::
> >
> > Just as it is easy to read 'identified' in a way that is too loose,
> it is easy
> > to read 'equivalent' in a way that is too tight.  We have had lots
> of problems
> > with people not grasping the optional [rough] implied where we talk
> about
> > equivalents.  What is really intended in either case (WCAG or 508)
> is
> > something
> > in the middle where the stretch to describe it either way is just a
> little
> > stretch.
> 
> --
> http://playground.alfred.edu/~bethnewt/
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 13:27:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT