W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Accessibility and its legal requirements

From: John Foliot - bytown internet <foliot@bytowninternet.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:12:57 -0500
To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GKEFJJEKDDIMBHJOGLENAEIMDAAA.foliot@bytowninternet.com>


> > Am I right in believing  that this is
> > not sufficient to meet priority 1? In that either the page must function
> > without javascript, or an alternative non-javascript page must be
> > supplied -- that's what's needed, not just noscript elements
> > saying "This page is inaccessible".


You are correct here.  The intent should be for equivalent functionality,
even if that means posting a toll free number or other means of interacting
with the company/form.  As Jon has pointed out, there are other, server-side
solutions to maintianing "state" in the user session.  You should also
consider that if the JS is also being used for form validation or
verification that it is relatively trivial for someone to spoof the form,
introducing security concerns.

>
> > From my (albeit biased) approach, frames are not conducive to
> > usability and
> > visitor accessibility (my bias:
> > http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?FramesAreEvil )...
>
> I get the impression you *want* an external opinion saying you should get
> rid of the frames.
> You should get rid of the frames.

Second Opinion: Get rid of the frames.  (See below re: cell phones, which
BTW do not support Frames)

> >
> > I would love a fully compliant XHTML1.0 Strict, CSS compliant, Bobby and
> > Access Valet compliant, non-javascript dependant website - I
> believe it to
> > be completely feasible with a handful of exceptions in
> > applications I do not
> > have a say in.
> >
> > If a company wants to its website to be geniunely accessible, is meeting
the
> > letter of the law sufficient? To me, meeting the letter of the law is
the
> > same as settling for second best (or doing half measures) -- am I just
being
> > too idealistic?

There are many, many valid business reasons for ensuring accessibility and
stiving for "the best" as opposed to the minimum:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html, http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/,
http://www.w3.org/Talks/WAI-Intro/slide1-0.html.  (I'm sure that Google
could ferret out more...).  For me, the "come-to-Jesus" moment is when I
surf to a client's web site on my cell phone; that they "get".  By ensuring
that their web site is "accessible", they also ensure that cutting edge
applications can still "work" with their web iste, that they are "industry
leaders" - it's the COOL FACTOR.  From your original post I am lead to
beleive that this is an assurance firm; do they want to be leaders or
followers?

Yes, you are perhaps being idealistic - keep up the good work <grin>.
Striving for the best is always better than half baked or "good enough"
don't you think?  While budgetary considerations are always a factor, appeal
to the firm's sense of right and also to their pride; make them see that
doing this is more than just accomodating people with disabilities.

Good Luck

JF
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 08:39:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT