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

RE: Scripting (was RE: Accessible road maps)

From: Steven Dale <sdale@stevendale.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 17:54:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1040.129.174.36.240.1086213250.squirrel@www.stevendale.com>
To: <mikba@microsoft.com>
Cc: <sdale@stevendale.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

That is an excellent example of why I dont think we should ban scripting
either.  But, it is an enhancement of speed in this case, not a necessity.

-Steve

Mike Barta said:
>
> Real world example.  I will admit that depending on how you interpret
> 'solve' here there is still room to disagree.
>
> We need to present a tree navigation whose data source nets out to ~70mg
> of data ( xml ).  Obviously one could not simple send the data set to
> the client for xsl :).  The data is factored out server side, loading to
> the client only the data needed to represent the current location in the
> tree.  So far no need for client side script.
>
> Since it is necessary to get more data for any tree node expansion we
> had two choices: navigate the entire page for every ( nearly ) tree
> navigation, or use client side code to retrieve only the new data and
> update the page.
>
> Since page load can be quite expensive for average connections (
> ~5sec-ish ) this would make traversing the document set slow and
> difficult.  Client side scripting provides an enormous benefit to all
> users here.
>
> Ofcourse if the functionallity broke when scripting was turned off that
> would be a violation of guidelines.  So it degrades to the 'nav on
> click' model if scripting isn't available.
>
>
> Is it strictly needed, depends.  Would I back banning script, no.  Not
> just for cases like these but for any use that the author deems relevant
> -- as long as there is a gracefull decline ( no script only
> functionallity ).
>
> .02
> /m
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Steven Dale
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:56 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Scripting (was RE: Accessible road maps)
>
>
> Hmmmmm,  I hear much whining and emotional reasons for WANTING client
> side scripting.  My original question was and still is: Do we NEED
> client side scripting?  Is there just one example of using client side
> scripting to solve a problem which cannot be solved in an alternative
> manner and does the use of the script not cause any accessibility issues
> accross the board of all Web Accessibility issues?
>
> I am not saying that client side scripting should be banned, but, should
> be treated as an optional enhancement to the webpage.  This should only
> be used to enhance the end user's experience PROVIDED that the
> capability exists on the end user's system and the end user's ability. I
> think it is obvious from the responses in this thread that even the
> accessibility experts here want to code freely with scripts.  Now, if
> the accessibility experts want this, imagine what web page hackers will
> do....  We need to DISCOURAGE MANDATORY use of scripts by the end user
> viewing a webpage.
>
> Again, I have yet to receive one example of client side scripts solving
> a problem that cannot be solved alternatively and is fully accessible.
>
> -Steve
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 17:55:15 UTC

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