- From: Christophe Strobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:25:23 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi Peter-Paul,
At 00:43 8/07/2005, Peter-Paul Koch wrote:
> > 5) We don't have a large team of volunteers who are expert in
> > JavaScript which would be necessary to mount the kind of effort needed to
> > produce the JavaScript Techniques document we had been planning.
>
>I am willing to devote some time to creating good examples of
>accessible JavaScript, or, at least, examples of JavaScript code
>designed to keep the HTML page they appears on accessible.
>(...)
>
>Since I'm a new member,
Welcome! (Welkom!)
>I'd appreciate:
>
>a) a link to the current Scripting Techniques document
Client-side Scripting Techniques for WCAG 2.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-SCRIPT-TECHS-20050630/Overview.html
>b) a short summary of the purpose of this document
If you don't mind, I'd like to use the opportunity to sketch a somewhat
broader picture.
As you know, each requirement in WCAG 2 must be verifiable [1]. Anything
that is normative in WCAG 2 must be testable [2]. WCAG success criteria are
also meant to be technology-independent [3], but you can only test
something that is implemented in a technology. So Techniques documents
could contain testable statments that prove that success criteria can be
reached and are therefore testable. ("Anti-techniques" might show how one
can fail success criteria.) However, the Techniques documents contain tasks
instead of testable statements, and the tasks are accompanied by acceptable
and (sometimes also) deprecated examples that illustrate the tasks, and by
test files in test suites. So one could argue that the examples and test
cases prove that the techniques are testable, which in turn proves that the
success criteria are testable [4].
The Client-Side Scripting Techniques are important because WCAG 2.0
introduces the concept of baseline and the scripting techniques are a major
test for this concept. For example, techniques may have different levels of
usefulness depending on the baseline. Also, scripting may be in the
baseline, but the user does not necessarily have scripting enabled. One of
the recent discussions in the working group was about whether techniques
should be described with respect to the baseline or with respect to the
different technonologies (and what happens if different technologies work
together)?
In the conference calls of the last two weeks [5] [6], the working group
has been harvesting techniques. Your expertise will be very helpful.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/#clear-reqs
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/#normative (see N5)
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/#cross-tech
[4] This is my own summary of the discussion in the 11 May telecon
(http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html) and other discussions.
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/30-wai-wcag-minutes.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Regards,
Christophe Strobbe
--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 18:26:39 UTC