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

Re: Accessible road maps

From: Erika Noll Webb <ewebb@quintusdesign.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:33:23 -0600
Message-ID: <023601c44817$afd5f960$6400a8c0@erika>
To: "Mike Barta" <mikba@microsoft.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>
This has come up for us in another circumstance recently.  I use the analogy of cell phones while driving.  Should people talk on the phone while driving?  Well, probably not, but we KNOW that they will.  So does that mean we shouldn't develop devices or systems to make use of the phone while driving safer? No, we should recognize what people will do regardless of what we think of that and try to improve it.

But that's just my perspective.

Erika
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike Barta 
  To: Kerstin Goldsmith ; sdale@stevendale.com 
  Cc: pjenkins@us.ibm.com ; david@djwhome.demon.co.uk ; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 2:25 PM
  Subject: RE: Accessible road maps


  I'd concur with this.  if we say that one cannot use a technology, when there are accessible ways to use it, we will weaken the guidelines. 

  /m



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kerstin Goldsmith
  Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:10 PM
  To: sdale@stevendale.com
  Cc: pjenkins@us.ibm.com; david@djwhome.demon.co.uk; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
  Subject: Re: Accessible road maps


  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 16:33:31 UTC

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