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

At 04:43 PM 2000-07-24 -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?

AG::

I't possible nobody but us would read "text equivalent for SCRIPT element"
and infer all that needs to be done to fix pages to pass 6.3.  Consider the
usworkforce.org page.  The SCRIPT element is in the HEAD of the page where
no NOSCRIPT clause will be  displayed.  Nothing in a NOSCRIPT can add the
missing ACTION attribute to the form "selecter1."

If what you suggest is how we look at things, would there be any other way
to determine if you actually _have_ a text _equivalent_ for all SCRIPT
elements than to check 6.3.1?  Does this observation save us anything?  Is
it not better to go with thte language that communicates to people what
they are looking for?  Operability.  Operational equivalence is even
better, but is not per se required.  Text equivalents typically only tell
you what the script would have done.  That is not in general sufficient to
leave a working page.

Al

>
>Chris
>

Received on Thursday, 27 July 2000 09:33:59 UTC