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

RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

From: ANDERSEN, Leon <Leon.Andersen@fahcsia.gov.au>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:58:58 +0000
To: 'Steve Green' <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>, Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F52216DBF187D842887AC0F4BD83EFCB3A339517@PRMSGEXC001.production.local>
Further to Steve's comments, with regard to baseline technology, I think that declaration should be carefully considered dependant on the audience and the service/product/functionality being provided. 

If it is a public domain site and an essential service e.g. a government service, declaring that the user must have JavaScript is going to potentially create a lot of problems. In this case I would work with a model of progressive enhancement; all users can access the site without JavaScript but where it is available it adds the bells and whistles. 

I think a service provider who declares this is how we designed our site/product and this is what you must use is asking for trouble and still living back in the days of the browser wars.

Design for flexibility and inclusivity.

Leon

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Green [mailto:steve.green@testpartners.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012 2:00 PM
To: Karen Lewellen; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

Hi Karen,

There are a number of separate issues here, including:

1. The phrase 'full accessibility' is meaningless - there is no such thing. Full compliance with a particular accessibility specification such as WCAG 2.0 level AA is possible. However, such a website may still be inaccessible to some people to some degree.

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.

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.

Another example is 'skip' links. They work in Internet Explorer and Firefox but they don't work in Chrome, Safari or Opera unless you use a JavaScript hack.

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.

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.

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 03:59:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 December 2012 03:59:53 GMT