- From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:21:22 -0500
- To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thanks Becky. [snip] ... Thus, equivalents for scripted content are no longer required by WCAG 2.0, but the author must consider the web site audience, user agents, and assistive technologies when developing for the web. In addition, all authors must assume that persons with disabilities will access the site. Thus, any scripting used must be accessible. [end snip] Not sure we should say equivalents to script are "no longer required" on this. Suggest revising to say something like "not always required" or something like: [begin proposed] ... Thus, the need for equivalents for scripted content depends on a number of factors including user agent and assistive technology support and the web site audience. For additional information related to choosing an appropriate baseline, refer to [@@ link to resource discussing the issues considerations in choosing an appropriate baseline] [end proposed] One concern I've got about this is how to make a clear distinction between (optionally) using script to improve accessibility and creating a directly accessible script that is representative of something where the only practical way for a developer to achieve the result is to use javascript. I guess this is an extension of Michael's suggestion "cannot be replicated in HTML" to "cannot be replicated in other web technologies." Perhaps this belongs in the informative details we provide about choosing an appropriate baseline, but should we also consider including details about the pros and cons of relying on a technology like javascript in your baseline at the technology-specific techniques level? -- Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu> Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 16:30:35 UTC