Checkpoint 9.3

Hello.

It's my first post: soon I will write my own short presentation, as
requested by Wendy. For now, I've in the mess with a redesign, and wish
to point out a problem with guideline 9 and checkpoint 9.3.

What if a event handler is used only as a feature useful, say, for
normal-sighted users? Like the feature of making something (as a
menu...) *disappear/re-appear in the page with a click*, only for visual
clearness
(and visible by default)? It must be considered a presentational
manipulation like changing color (changing visibility...), or I have to
insert an equivalent device-indipendent event handler? Equivalents are
not recognized by the browser I tested, anyway, and some of them are not
allowed by xhtml specs for that element (not an 'a').

I don't think the equivalent is necessary, 'cause the blind-sighted, as
example, do not take advantage by manipulating the visibility of the
element! It's not an important functionality, but a visual-only feature
for some users. Little more than a gadget... ;-)

My proposal is to better specify the requisite for event-handlers
device-indipendence in the guideline, including when and why, and some
example.

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-device-independence
"...9.3 For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than
device-dependent event handlers. [Priority 2] "

should be:
"9.3 For scripts that trigger functionality useful to any category of
user (and/or not for presentational-only variations), specify logical
event handlers rather than device-dependent event handlers. [Priority 2]
"

(Ehm... It can be be improved, i guess...)

Please consider that very often scripts (DOM compliant, of course...
;-) ) are used in a variety of ways for creating some interaction
effect, that are not important for those who are unable to see the
effect, and even for those who can see they are not important (basic)
functionality.

What do you think?
Thanks for any opinion.

Maurizio Boscarol

PS: Different validators give different evaluations on this case... Some
rapair tools suggested even an invalid markup to solve the problem!...

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 10:14:19 UTC