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: Jim Thatcher <thatch@attglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:21:40 -0600
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <NDBBKJDAKKEJDCICIODLMECNCLAA.thatch@attglobal.net>
I have been following the discussion of JavaScript and 508 with interest. It
is clear, for reasons already mentioned in this thread, that 508 does not
require that your page function with JavaScript turned off. Therefore, for
508 considerations, I believe the discussion of Lynx and down level browsers
is off the table.

Like Reidy, my interpretation of the 508 JavaScript standard (1194.22 (l))
is that the result/effect of JavaScript must be accessible, i.e., available
to assistive technology.

So indeed, accessible JavaScript techniques will help - but perhaps the most
important contribution we can make is to agree to and describe uses of
JavaScript that DO NOT satisfy (a strict interpretation of) the section 508
standard.

Here's my first candidate for JavaScript that DOES NOT meet the 508
Standard:

** Do not use the OnChange event handler to trigger ACTION in a select menu.
If you do, the menu will not work with the keyboard. Note that the OnChange
event can be used for other purposes, like changing the state of a check
box. If onChange is used, focus remain on the select menu. How do we define
actions that are OK and ones that are not?

Jim
jim@jimthatcher.com
Accessibility Consulting
http://jimthatcher.com
512-306-0931

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Al Gilman
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:45 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: QUESTION: use of javascript to comply with Sect 508


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.

If we can build a good corpus of good examples, I don't think that we will
have
a lot of trouble getting those who are trying to comply with 508 to emulate
the
examples.  "Damn the terminology, full TECHNIQUES ahead!" (see GL list
mobilizing to build techniques in this and other areas)

Al

>--beth
>--
><http://playground.alfred.edu/~bethnewt/>http://playground.alfred.edu/~bet
hnewt/
>
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2001 17:24:00 GMT

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