- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:32:25 +0300
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Ok there were two sections to my email on scripts The first was a proposal - That we distil all the individual problems with scripts authoring to generalizations that can be included in WCAG The second part of my email was an example of the type of thing it might include, or what it might look like, to help people understand the proposal -as a brain dump... > > 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? for - it is in contrast to... > > scripts should not create a new dom element In other words what I am suggesting / asking (this section of the proposal was just a brainstorm) Does the DOM need to be populated by the original document for content to be accessible? Is this an inherent problems and what are user agent bugs? More important perhaps I am wondering about script languages that affect the integrity of the component model, (for example when the DOM is created or broken by document.write ) or (even worse) when a script language or platform does not have component integrity. If we can address and understand these questions then that will help designers choose a platform/language for scripting, and , approach script writing in an accessible manner. It would also help platform creators understand how to make their platforms accessible. That would be really useful. But probably the first question is, do we want to try and set a guideline on what is accessible scripting? Can we distil all the individual problems with scripts to generalizations that apply to WCAG? Note -I am not talking about when the script's functionality is not "important" (which we could argue about all day). We can worry about scoping later. I am suggesting we look at what , from a technical perspective, brakes a scripts ability to be accessible, possibly in what ever form the script is in. Lisa
Received on Friday, 16 July 2004 06:32:17 UTC