RE: Technique 6.3.1 page usable when programmatic objects disabled (nit)

>                                              ...and there are
>no other links on the page, we have a problem.

AG::

Would it be a friendly amendment to say "no other _comparable_ links" or
"no equivalent links"?

Al

At 12:24 PM 2000-07-27 -0400, Michael Cooper wrote:
>I agree with what I think Len is saying... We should require text
>equivalents of programmatic objects, in order to ensure that _content_ is
>available. We also need to require that any _functionality_, such as
>navigation, be available if the object does not run. Depending on the
>object, that second point may or may not apply, and we may or may not be
>able to suggest a way to check for it automatically.
>
>For example, a script doing a mouseover image switch, in which the image
>just changes color or something so the ALT text doesn't get invalidated,
>already has alternative content (the image's alt text) and doesn't need
>anything else to happen if it doesn't run - they hyperlink will still work.
>By contrast, a Flash splash screen that has an animated company logo can
>have some sort of text equivalent associated with it, but if it requires you
>to interact with the object on order to get to the next page, and there are
>no other links on the page, we have a problem.
>
>Michael
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org
>[mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Leonard R. Kasday
>Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 3:52 PM
>To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
>Subject: 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 Thursday, 27 July 2000 14:31:58 UTC