Re: JavaScript Alternative Curiosity

There are two kinds of requirements on scripts, applets, and active
content. The first is that the page work without them. (I guess the rationale
is obvious). The second is that they are directly accessible themselves:

From WCAG 1.0

8.1 Make programmatic content such as scripts or applets directly accessible
or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if functinality is
important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise priority 2]

6.5 Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative page
[Priority 2]

(and a few others)

I would argue that in this case the functionality is important (not a
difficult argument to make for navigation) and it sounds like it is not
presentetd elsewhhere - i.e. if scripts are running, the noscript content
isn't made available. So it doesn't seem like the problem is in the
guidelines, but in the implementation of the site. (Although I was surprised
not to find 8.1 in the P1 part of the WCAG checklist but in the P2 part).

To raise an issue for WCAG 2.0...
It requires device-independent event handlers, and that interfaces are
compatible with assisitve technology. However there is a continuum of
assistive technology. The simplest and most used form I suspect is changing
the fonts used - and in most modern systems this is a simple system-level
choice, that can also be repeated in software. Most modern operating systems
also provide speech output, magnification, keyboard macro definition, etc. So
it needs to be clear either that assitive technology is something that broad,
or that direct accessibility is a reqauirement.

cheers

Charles McCN

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Marti wrote:

  This comes from a discussion on the ACB list.
  It seems the JC Penny (http://www.jcpenny.com) website uses a JavaScript
  navigation menu with an extensive <noscript> section. This means that when
  you use it with Lynx the navigation menu is pretty normal HTML but with IE
  and JFW the menu is mostly unusable, of course you can turn off JavaScript
  in IE to get the HTML version so the 'letter' of the requirement is met but
  for most (many) screen reader users turning on/off JavaScript to see if a
  page is accessible is a bit extream.  Any thoughts on this?  Can we reword
  the checkpoint to avoid this kind of situation?
  Marti
  
  

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Sunday, 5 November 2000 10:46:21 UTC