W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Real world example of destructive onfocus

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:03:00 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: aaronl@netscape.com (Aaron Leventhal)
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
You are basically asking that checkpoint 9.3 [1] be either removed from the 
document or reduced in Priority.  We discussed reducing the Priority of 
checkpoint 9.3 at last weeks telecon.  I think the questions you raised are 
important for the group to discuss further, since this is a new requirement 
on the document.

1. Do we have examples of access to content that this feature would be of 
The current thought of the working group seems to be that any script may 
cause accessibility problems if it is automatically executed, so we want 
some way to control the execution of scripts without having to turn them 
all off.  We don't have any examples of how this particular techniques 
would solve an existing accessibility problem.  This is probably a good 
idea if we are going to require developers to add a feature.  The problem 
could be the start of a test suite for conforming to the user agent guidelines.

2. Last week people felt that main reason for reducing the Priority of this 
checkpoint, the ability to turning off all scripts (checkpoint 3.4) and 
query the event handlers associated with an element (Checkpoint 9.6), would 
make the elements inactive and therefore people could may not be able to 
navigate to them.

3. Your question of not moving focus as an undue burden for developers.
How hard is it to just disable event handlers that related to focus moves?
We actually want the focus to be on the event handler, so that the user can 
interact with it manually.

Thanks for you comments Aaron,
Can you come to the telecon on Thursday?


[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010309/#gl-navigation

At 08:02 PM 3/12/2001 -0800, Aaron Leventhal wrote:
>In my view, onfocus and onblur events are not used in ways destructive to 
>accessibility. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong.
>I also think it's putting a big burden on developers, and the complexity 
>of the UI, to support navigating to elements without focusing there.
>Personally, if we can't find a real world example, I'd like to see onfocus 
>and onblur events excluded from the bit about needing to navigate without 
>setting off event handlers. Unless someone can argue a good case where 
>it's really useful.
>jon gunderson wrote:
>>Does any body have any information on the current use of onFoucs and
>>onBlur events?
>>On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Aaron Leventhal wrote:
>>>Can anyone find a real world example where the automatic onfocus that's
>>>called is something you don't want automated?
>>>BTW, thanks to Gregory for the example (albeit strange) of the
>>>destructive this.close() call.
>>>For information about Netscape and Mozilla Accessibility projects,
>>>please see the Access Mozilla <http://access-mozilla.sourceforge.net>
>>>To join the mozilla-accessibility mailing list, send email to
>>>subject "subscribe".
>For information about Netscape and Mozilla Accessibility projects, please 
>see the <http://access-mozilla.sourceforge.net>Access Mozilla website.
>To join the mozilla-accessibility mailing list, send email to 
>subject "subscribe".

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 11:00:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC