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: daniel smith <websounding@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:24:44 -0500
To: lubow_scott@bah.com
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <F21W9F0qnqEBQdWfFMV00004274@hotmail.com>
To: Lubow Scott

Regarding sites using fly out menus that are readable by assistives. can you 
think of any examples offhand of this live at present?

Thanks.

Daniel Smith
Verizon Wireless


>From: "Lubow Scott" <lubow_scott@bah.com>
>To: Beth Skwarecki <skwareea@screech.cs.alfred.edu>
>CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>Subject: Re: QUESTION: use of javascript to comply with Sect 508
>Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:31:19 -0500
>
>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/
><< smime.p7s >>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2001 23:25:20 GMT

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