W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Guideline 6.3 interpretation

From: Robert Neff <rneff@bbnow.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 04:06:22 -0500
To: <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au>, <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
with all that code on individual pages, it does not make sense to use client
side JavaScript.  If the servers are not an issue, it would be much easier
to write business rules and put them on the server side, fix during test and
maintain  - if the validation was on the server-side.  also the files size
of the downloaded files would decrease for a better customer experience.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 10:59 PM
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Subject: Guideline 6.3 interpretation


We are working with a commercial organisation that is using javascript
heavily to check the integrity of entries and selection on their
transactions pges.

Testing to date with keyboard only indicates that a mouse is will not be
required with a few small changes, and screen reader (JAWS 3.7) testing
with a blind user is also largely successful.

However, the site will probably fall apart if javascript is disabled -
where does this leave them with respect to meeting Priority 1?

Any advice?  Andrew
Dr Andrew Arch
Manager, Internet Product Development
Vision Australia Foundation
Ph 613 9864 9222; Fax 613 9864 9210
Mobile 0438 755 565

Member, Education & Outreach Working Group,
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 05:00:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:31 UTC