Re: [techs] scripts

Lisa Seeman wrote:

> To start of the list of inaccessible script generalizations I suggest the
> following entry:

I think these are too general. I can think of several examples of 
accessible scripts that do not comply with these generalizations.

> scripts can change there value of an existing attribute or value on an
> existing tags/elements

You phrasing here is unclear. Are you for or against scripts that can 
change these values?

> scripts should not create a new dom element

Then how should the DOM methods be used? Would you have the WCAG 
recommendation claim that parts of the DOM recommendation are 
problematic? I don't think they are.

It is unrealistic to discourage functionality written into another 
standard. Instead, we should encourage accessible use of those 
standards. As far as I know, all the DOM methods can be used in an 
accessible manner.

Consider the following DHTML menu script. All the sub-level menus are 
written into the DOM dynamically using the document.createElement() and 
element.appendChild() methods.

http://test.texasonline.state.tx.us/menutests/menus.htm

Yet the script is accessible because those menus are not essential to 
the functionality of the site. They are an added benefit to the majority 
of users who will visit the site with a mouse and a scripting engine 
available. Perhaps this one should say something like:

"Scripts should not create a new DOM element if that element is 
essential to the functionality of the resource."

James

-- 
http://cookiecrook.com/

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 17:41:01 UTC