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

RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:36:42 -0800
To: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>, Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
CC: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EE43A638A0C5E34E80AF78EFE940FC2C01B72584D5@nambx09.corp.adobe.com>
Karen,

this is apart of the bell complaint too, but for different reasons...and bell agrees that pdf is a problem.  Even their non-disabled users complain about their making bills available in this format, or program guides, because many many people use different platforms other than windows, the Adobe readers can be buggy, and pdff files  are  confusing to navigate.

[AWK] It is hard to tell from what you wrote if PDF is an accessibility problem or if people in general are having trouble of various types.  It is also not possible to tell whether any problems people with disabilities are having are due to the way the files are being authored or for some other reason.  People are welcome to their own opinions of course, but I believe that if a PDF document is authored to be as accessible as the format allows and people are finding them confusing to navigate that this is more likely a problem with the organization of the content.

Things like pdf create the suggestion again that if it works in Jaws it is accessible, never mind nothing could be further from the truth.

[AWK] PDF accessibility is not limited to JAWS.


On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Ramón Corominas wrote:

> Hi, Andrew and all.
>
> Although I basically agree with you in terms of the "accessibility support" 
> in the case of JavaScript, I am not sure that we can simply say "I'm 
> relying on this technology, so if there is not full support it is not my problem".
>
> Indeed, for certain technologies it is clear that there is a lack of 
> accessibility support that would affect disabled users differently 
> than non-disabled users. For example, although PDF documents can be 
> made "accessible", for now they are only accessibility supported on 
> Windows using Adobe Reader (and I think only fully supported with 
> JAWS). For Mac or Linux users, PDF will NOT be accessible even if the 
> document is properly tagged, etc. Therefore, web owners cannot simply 
> say "we rely on Adobe PDF, so if you are using another OS is not our problem".
>
> Of course, in the case of PDF none of the conditions of the 
> "accessibility support" are met, so we cannot claim "accessibility 
> support" unless the documents are used in a closed environment. 
> Nevertheless, with other technologies it seems sometimes that we 
> simply consider that forcing the users to change their normal tools is 
> fair, Apparently, users are guilty for not using "the right tool".
>
> That said, I agree that we must be realistic, too. We cannot pretend 
> that developers test every combination of OS, browser and AT, but 
> there should also be a limit to the "it's your fault by not using the appropriate tool"
> excuse.
>
> Regards,
> Ramón.
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
>>  The way I answer this question for developers is that JavaScript is  
>> permissible under WCAG 2.0, but like any other technology it needs to  
>> correctly expose information about accessibility of the content and 
>> meet  other WCAG 2.0 success criteria .
>>
>>  The fact that there are people who disable JavaScript and clients  
>> available which restrict JavaScript is not a factor, for the reasons 
>> Steve  Faulkner stated - users have a choice of browsers and other 
>> tools to use,  and this issue doesn't uniquely affect users with 
>> disabilities. There is  no such thing as "technology baseline" in 
>> WCAG 2.0 but within the  conformance claim required components is a 
>> need to identify the components  that the site "relies on" 
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#reliedupondef).  It  is perfectly 
>> legitimate to indicate that a site relies on JavaScript,  ARIA, and 
>> other technologies which are supported differently in different  tools.
>>  I fully agree that progressive enhancement is the best approach, but 
>> it  may not always be possible to provide the same functionality with 
>> and  without JS.
>>  Thanks,
>>  AWK
>>
>>  Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>  Group Product Manager, Accessibility  Adobe Systems
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 20:37:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 December 2012 20:37:16 GMT