Re: Technique 6.3.1 [priority 1] Verify that the page is usable when programmatic objects are disabled.

In my personal opinion, yes, we still need 6.3.1.  Text equivalents are not 
enough.

Do other folks agree?

Len

At 09:34 AM 7/26/00 -0400, Chris Ridpath wrote:
> > As for "having a text equiv for a programmatic object yet the page is
> > unusable when the object is turned off"... I don't understand why you're
> > asking this... the script example we're talking about is an example of how
> > this can happen.
> >
>I just wanted to be clear about this. So... A text equivalent of a
>programmatic object may not be good enough. You may have to make more
>changes such as creating some server programs. Technique 6.3.1 is still
>needed.
>
>Chris
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
>To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 5:02 PM
>Subject: Re: Technique 6.3.1 [priority 1] Verify that the page is usable
>when programmatic objects are disabled.
>
>
> > Yes, it seems that validating the server side equivalent is not part of
>1.1.10.
> >
> > So need to add a rule that triggers on any javascript that tells user to
> > check manually that functionality is equivalent.  In other words, it's not
> > enough to be accessible.  It must actually give the same function.
> >
> > As for "having a text equiv for a programmatic object yet the page is
> > unusable when the object is turned off"... I don't understand why you're
> > asking this... the script example we're talking about is an example of how
> > this can happen.
> >
> > Len
> >
> > At 01:37 PM 7/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
> > > > For example, if a form uses a button that triggers javascript, then
>when
> > > > you turn off javascript you will need to have a SUBMIT button instead.
> > > >
> > >Hmmm, that would be the text equivalent of the script and fulfills
>technique
> > >1.1.10. But what about the required server verification of the fields -
>it's
> > >not covered by 1.1.10?
> > >
> > >I'm questioning whether you can have a text equiv for a programmatic
>object
> > >yet the page is unusable when the object is turned off.
> > >
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
> > >To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "WAI ER IG List"
> > ><w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 9:58 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Technique 6.3.1 [priority 1] Verify that the page is usable
> > >when programmatic objects are disabled.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Sometimes you need more than a text equivalent to make a page usable
>with
> > > > programmatic objects are disabled.
> > > >
> > > > For example, if a form uses a button that triggers javascript, then
>when
> > > > you turn off javascript you will need to have a SUBMIT button instead.
> > > >
> > > > This often comes up when the javasrcript is used to verify the
> > > > fields.  This means then when you replace it with the submit button,
>that
> > > > field verification has to be moved to the server, e.g. to a CGI
> > > > script  (this is something a good programmer would want to do anyway).
> > >So
> > > > the user really has to check server functionality here.
> > > >
> > > > (In principle, we'd want the tool to check the server code, probably
>by
> > > > black box testing.  If we don't get into that now, perhaps we should
>add a
> > > > section to point out explicity that we're not getting into this.
> > > >
> > > > Len
> > > >
> > > > At 04:43 PM 7/24/00 -0400, Chris Ridpath wrote:
> > > > >It looks to me that technique 6.3.1 (verify that the page is usable
>when
> > > > >programmatic objects are disabled) is covered by technique 1.1
>(Provide a
> > > > >text equivalent for every non-text element). The specific techniques
>are:
> > > > >
> > > > >1.1.4 [priority 1] Check APPLET elements...
> > > > >1.1.5 [priority 1] Check OBJECT elements...
> > > > >1.1.10 [priority 1] Check SCRIPT elements...
> > > > >
> > > > >If we have a text equivalent for the programmatic object then the
>page is
> > > > >usable when the programmatic object is disabled.
> > > > >
> > > > >Make sense?
> > > > >
> > > > >Chris
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
> > > > Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
> > > > Department of Electrical Engineering
> > > > Temple University 423 Ritter Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122
> > > >
> > > > kasday@acm.org
> > > > http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday
> > > >
> > > > (215) 204-2247 (voice)  (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
> > > >
> > > > The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
> > > > http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
> > Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
> > Department of Electrical Engineering
> > Temple University 423 Ritter Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122
> >
> > kasday@acm.org
> > http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday
> >
> > (215) 204-2247 (voice)  (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
> >
> > The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
> > http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
> >

--
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
Department of Electrical Engineering
Temple University 423 Ritter Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122

kasday@acm.org
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday

(215) 204-2247 (voice)  (800) 750-7428 (TTY)

The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2000 15:50:52 UTC