- 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