W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Accessible road maps

From: Kerstin Goldsmith <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:10:22 -0700
Message-ID: <40BCE2AE.4020903@oracle.com>
To: sdale@stevendale.com
Cc: pjenkins@us.ibm.com, david@djwhome.demon.co.uk, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I am not sure that this question is really relevant.  I think a more 
important question is "should we be restricting people's choices of 
different technologies in the name of accessibility when those 
technologies can be used to create accessible interfaces."  It's not our 
job to ask people to prove that they HAVE to do something one way over 
another.  It's our job to realistically look at all technologies out 
there that people WILL use, and come up with ways for them to use them 
accessibly.  Pandora's box is open, we are not going to be able to put 
scripting back and shut the lid - so we better help people understand 
the choices they have in HOW they implement scripting.

My three cents.
-Kerstin

-Kerstin

Steven Dale wrote:

>This is all a nice argument for the sake of debate.
>
>But my question still has not been answered,
>why do we NEED client side scripting.  Can someone give me an example that
>requires Client Side Scripting while remains accessible when the scripting
>is used?
>
>-Steve
>
>Phill Jenkins said:
>  
>
>>Matt wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>So, what do we do? Banish scripting from the Web? Certainly not. We
>>>may
>>>      
>>>
>>David responded:
>><clip>
>>Remember that HTML and thus the web were created in deliberate rejection
>>of more sophisticated tools...
>>
>>Phill replies:
>>I view HTML's purpose a little differently and I believe it has evolved.
>> For example, events such as onClick, onKeyPress, etc are actually part
>>of  the HTML spec [see note 1].  I had thought they were part of the
>>JavaScript spec but they are not!
>>
>>David continued with:
>>Most web sites nowadays are computer programs, not documents, and
>>attempt to override the viewing tool's user interface.
>>
>>Phill replies:
>>That is exactly Matt's point.  You seem to be supporting his argument.
>>Many WAI individuals have focused on "banning" interactivity of web
>>sites  created from events and scripting that now we are late coming up
>>with  better techniques and specs to solve the problems.  Same thing
>>happened  over a decade ago when command line PC DOS applications were
>>replaced with  Window GUI's.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Phill Jenkins
>>
>>[Note 1] HTML 4 spec on Events
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.3
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 16:10:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:32 UTC