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

Re: Accessible road maps

From: Steven Dale <sdale@stevendale.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1173.129.174.36.179.1086124494.squirrel@www.stevendale.com>
To: <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>
Cc: <sdale@stevendale.com>, <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

First let me say I am not trying to put scripting back in the box nor am I
supporting the use of scripting.

But I think, and it is only my opinion, that having neat little tricks and
gizmos just because they are cool went out with the nineties web.  I think
we need to think about what is needed and why it is needed in order to be
mentioned in the guidelines.  If, something can be done in an equal way
that is more accessible than the alternative, that should be pointed out
and strongly urged as in techniques.  However, if we want to encourage
scripting just because it already exists, there is an amaturish sense of
using features because they are there.  There is also the credibility
issue where we push for new and keeping existing features of HTML with no
REAL need.

As for accessibility technology, a problem we are facing now is the overly
complex user agents.  Where we are having to make complex UAs in order to
solve accessibility problems of features that are not necessary.  And then
you have the very limited UAs of Cell Phones and PDAs.  What about them? 
Mind you that these devices dont have the memory available to casually
bloat software UAs.  Keep in mind too, the multitude of disabilities that
can impact the user in many areas such as Sight, Audio, Motor, and
Cognitive skills.

I believe if you want business to buy into accessibility and developers to
write accessible UAs then you need to better define what parts of (X)HTML
need to used, which parts are optional, but accessible, and which parts
are not accessible.  When documenting this, one needs to be scientific
with examples and sources.  Merely stating that since it has been done
this way in the past is not acceptable.  I bet you never liked it when
your mother told you "because I am the mother" when explaining why
something is the way it is.  Why should you expect businesses to buy into
that?

-Steve



Kerstin Goldsmith said:
> 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 17:16:23 UTC

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