W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > May 2006

RE: Deploying (accessible) XForms today?

From: Dharmesh Mistry <Dharmesh.Mistry@edgeipk.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:51:23 +0100
Message-ID: <6E80CFEBE068F44BAD79EB89CA1FD59148D431@edgemail01.uk.edgeipk.com>
To: "Stefano Debenedetti" <ste@demaledetti.net>
Cc: Ulrich Nicolas Lissť <u.n.l@gmx.net>, "Allan Beaufour" <beaufour@gmail.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>
Good question, to Priority 1 and 2.
 
We use third party tools like WatchFire....

________________________________

From: Stefano Debenedetti [mailto:ste@demaledetti.net]
Sent: Wed 5/10/2006 12:03 PM
To: Dharmesh Mistry
Cc: Ulrich Nicolas Lissť; Allan Beaufour; www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Re: Deploying (accessible) XForms today?



Dharmesh Mistry ha scritto:
> I agree we already ship a WAI compliant rendering solution, essentially
> server side rendering to WAI standards.

To be a bit more precise (WCAG is built in priorities also for this purpose), to what priority are you claiming that you are compliant?

What assistive technologies are you using for testing that what you claim is true?

http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-directly-accessible
 
> I know you know this, but Javascript does not mean forms are
> inaccessible, just that it's harder to design forms that are compliant
> without writing a naughty script ;o) So the end solution is a
> combination of a well generated standards compliant rendering platform
> coupled with good accessibility design (normally done through style sheets)

I also would like a pony, perhaps

ciao
ste

> 
> regards..........Dharmesh
> 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* www-forms-request@w3.org on behalf of Ulrich Nicolas Lissť
> *Sent:* Wed 5/10/2006 8:52 AM
> *To:* Allan Beaufour
> *Cc:* www-forms@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Deploying (accessible) XForms today?
>
>
> Allan,
>
> I don't think you're attacking server-side processors nor do I think you
> try to push your implementation. My only intent was to give an answer to
> your original question, from my own personal server-side view. I'm not
> interested in any religious controversy.
>
> So, to sum up: I don't think accessibility gets lost just by using
> server-side technology. Though AJAX scripting makes it a bit harder to
> build accessible web applications, it's not getting impossible just by
> using that technology.
>
> Best,
> Uli.
>
> Allan Beaufour wrote:
>>
>> On 5/9/06, Ulrich Nicolas Lissť <u.n.l@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> I don't see why server-side XForms processing should loose accessibility
>>> in contrast to client-side processing. You can have non-accessible pages
>>> requiring client-side XForms processing just as perfectly accessible
>>> server-generated pages.
>>
>> I'm not attacking server-side processors. If it came out like that,
>> I'm sorry. That was not intended. I do not have a hidden agenda of
>> trying to push my "own implementation". I just keep seeing these
>> "XForms should be good for accessibility -> but there is no generic
>> client support -> where does that leave us?" questions, and would like
>> to have an answer to that.
>>
>>> In fact this is what Chiba does. It attempts to generate as clean and
>>> conformant HTML 4.01 + CSS 2 pages as possible. When the client supports
>>> Javascript, Chiba automatically delivers AJAX-powered pages to improve
>>> the user experience. Of course there are still some quirks in but we try
>>> to approach 100% HTML 4.01 Strict conformance some day. The use of AJAX
>>> (or Partial Page Updates or XML Data Islands as this technique had been
>>> called when we started to explore it) is simply a means to an end.
>>>
>>> Like Erik I'm no accessibility expert but as far as I understand
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS and related specs scripting is
>>> not generally considered harmful for accessibility. There are a bunch of
>>> rules regarding the markup itself and the use of scripting. I'm
>>> convinced that it is achievable to create scripted pages aligning to
>>> accessibility rules.
>>
>> Well, I hope too, but I have yet to see an "authorative" answer to it.
>>
>> --
>> ... Allan
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ulrich Nicolas Lissť
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 16:52:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:04 GMT