- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:35:28 -0600
- To: "lisa seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A798CD2@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
Lisa, I can give you a better answer about whether screen readers can "get to" the content of the page if you can give me a specific task to try. I use JAWS 5.0 with IE 6. I went to the page just now and was able to get a frames list JAWS keystroke="Ins+F9) that included four frame. The frames are called Site, top bar, workarea frame, and bar frame. These aren't especially useful titles, but they *are* titles and even if they're automatically generated could presumably be programmed to be more informative. JAWS is unable to report some of the links on the page, possibly because they're coded using numerical values (I haven't looked at the source) to represent characters in a non-Western alphabet. Some of the graphics appear to have alt text-e.g., "Empty folder." Again not very informative, but htat's not so much a Javascript problem as a a Javascriptor problem-i.e., it's the human who wrote the Javascript, not the language. John -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of lisa seeman Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 1:52 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: questions on java scripts, life, the universe and WCAG 2.0... I am pinging the group on something that has been bothering me for a while. A while back it was explained to me that we were removing the priority 1 requirement that would bar people form using JavaScript In general terms the reasoning was to avoid make WCAG W3C centric, and to remove the until user agent stuff However in practice we have a situation were people can be P! compliant and totally inaccessible. For example - my variety site http://www.nagish.org.il/ <http://www.nagish.org.il/> were you have a frame, containing an imbedded frame, were the frame set itself is written by a JavaScript and a useful no frames and no scripts apparently can not be generated by the content management system. (by the way the site owners are good guys, and are working to change it) code snippet from second frameset) " document.write('<frameset rows="91,*" name="MainFrame" border="0">') document.write('<frame class="clsFrameTitle" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" id="idTopBar" name="TopBar" src="frame_title.asp?sp_c=424450463" frameborder="0" scrolling="NO" noresize>') " I have two questions 1, can a single screen reader out there get to the content of the page as it is now? 2, would the site owners be likely to entirely rewrite their site, and change content management systems, if they could still claim some level of accessibility (after all, the alt tags are filled in -the fonts are even relative - the site owner tried to make it accessible) The nagging feeling a the back of my mind, - WCAG 2 may be a more testable normative document - but is it a better set of guidelines (not policy) on how to make your website accessible? Yup, of course - I am still thinking of the demotion of the guideline on writing clearly... All the best Lisa Seeman Visit us at the UB Access <http://www.ubaccess.com/> website UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
Received on Saturday, 29 November 2003 16:35:43 UTC