- From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:32:01 +0100
- To: <gdeering@acslink.net.au>, "W3C WAI AU" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Deering" <gdeering@acslink.net.au> To: "W3C WAI AU" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 4:42 AM Subject: The Problem of Web Based Authoring (revisited) I am also afraid to say that I feel there is a need for a third type of category (1. Software Accessibility 2. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 3. Web Application Accessibility), the problem is that *every" "Web Based Application Tool/ CMS Interface" I have seen does not comply with WCAG1 Priority 1. All of them rely on scripts (Java, JavaScript), many rely on popups for certain functions of the user interface, etc. I just cannot see any of them seeing the benefits of transferring all scripting to the server side and trying to become ATAG compliant. They are all script dependant. Roberto: This is true, checkpoint 6.3 said this. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-scripts but WCAG can also ask, in checkpoint 8.1, that in this case sets as Priority 1: "Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies" So, at this point, the best solution is to use <object> element with objects that are itself accessible. I think that we don't need a third type of category because at now we have: 1) User Agent Accessibility Guidelines for accessible application that let to render web contents 2) Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines for accessible application that let to create accessible contents 3) Web Contents Accessibility Guidelines for accessible contents I think that at this point, for CMS solutions and for "web application" the WCAG checkpoint 8.1 could refer to ATAG guidelines... Geoff: I did 2 days of Interwoven Teamsite training a few weeks back, and I just could not see any reason why they would try and comply to the letter of these guidelines. What is the benefit to any of the CMS developers to follow ATAG, because it will surely kill their product in the general market, it will put them so far behind their competitors. Roberto: I think that this is a commercial problem for the plugin/cms developers that must be resolved inside these companies. For eg. I'm personally following the new characteristics of XStandard.com plugin (that needs to have the implementation for grant access independently from the input interface) and I'm seeing that the developing of a good CMS based with plug-ins could be really done.
Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 08:40:16 UTC