W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2012

RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:58:20 -0500 (EST)
To: Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.1212122218360.24581@server1.shellworld.net>
Hi Steve,
I want to touch on two points here.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Steve Green wrote:

> There are a number of separate issues here, including:
> 1. The phrase 'full accessibility' is meaningless - there is no such 
me: there choice of words, not mine and I would respect your 

> 2. If you are talking about WCAG compliance, the browser you test with is largely irrelevant because the success criteria are written such as to be browser agnostic.

me: lol! browser agnostic?  Forgive me, but that expression made me 
laugh...get that browser to a church on time!
Seriously, can you expand a bit here  please?  What I suspect is that the 
success criteria, say for wacg 2.0 Level AA is not rooted in the browsers 
themselves...even though Bell is claiming it is.  as in if  our site works 
with Chrome and Firefox it is fully wacg 2.0 compliant, end of story.
You suggest that the success is rooted in tasks perhaps? like your fine 
statement as an example below.

> However, in practice there are differences, so we use more than one browser to test certain success criteria. An example is zooming - you would have thought that all browsers would be identical in this respect, but for some reason we sometimes see differences.

me: How many at least four?  and what happened to the easy days of lynx, 
elinks, and links?  after those made the grade anything else in theory 
should be easier to separate the site from the environment so to speak.
so, one per operating system, or something?

> 3. If Bell declare JavaScript to be part of their technology baseline, then the website does not need to work without JavaScript enabled. However, all the JavaScript features must be implemented in an accessible manner.

me: This is one issue specifically.  They write that they know that for 
some people using jaws, javascript can lock the screen reader in a loop, but 
that the use of javascript is compliant according to wacg 2.0...which 
does not make sense here.  if Javascript is not easily usable than it 
should not be used, unless I am over simplifying.
At the very least, there should be a css that gives users a choice?

Last of all,

> 4. I don't know what you mean by 'script buttons'. However, a button is not accessible if it cannot be operated using keyboard controls. That is a very clear WCAG requirement.

Can you quote me that exact section?  Here is what I mean by a script 
Now, I use either Lynx or links sometimes elinks here at Shellworld.
On bell's site when you wish to log into your account you meet with a 
button that produces two pieces of information with those browsers.
First my screen reader says to me
"script button, use arrow keys or tab to move off field."
In the more java script friendly of those two browsers elinks and links, 
the status line at the bottom states that the button is harmless.  Perhaps 
the alt tag actually says java script harmless button, or the coding says 
Still harmless appears in the text description on the status line.
You can do nothing with the arrow keys,  other than what you are told, 
move off the button.
IN elinks, that much information, about moving may not appear, the link is 
simply silent.
In more current editions of lynx the cat, there is a trick which can allow 
you to use the keyboard to make the button work.  It does not help in 
bell's case however.
  Does this make more sense?
Thanks for providing such  wisdom,
  > > 
Steve Green
> Test Partners Ltd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
> Sent: 13 December 2012 02:33
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?
> I ask for two reasons.
> I believe there is a difference between java script, and the use of script buttons that require a physical mouse click.  I am in a dispute with bell the telecommunications company in Canada.
> They have made two claims,
> first that testing with firefox and chrome equal full accessibility, and second, that the use of java script  represents wacg 2.0 compliance.
> My point to them referencing   several  script button, which to the best of my
> knowledge is not the same thing.
>  what say you?
> first is it enough to test a site with firefox and chrome to insure access in terms of the guidelines, second, are java script and the use of script buttons that need a mouse click he same thing?
> and third, if not, as i suspect, how can I articulate this clearly?
> What I  would appreciate is   the sort of answer that is detailed enough for me
> to include in my reply to the company's latest communication.
> thanks in advance,
> Karen
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 03:58:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:46 UTC