- From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:35:05 +0000
- To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
document.write and innerHTML are not a problem for accessibility. They work just fine with AT. I'm honestly still not sure why we even have this technique. There's also a larger issue here. People are treating failing a technique test as failing a success criterion. That is simply not true. What can we do to educate tool makers about this? -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christophe Strobbe Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:40 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: SCR21 At 14:06 8/06/2009, Andi Snow-Weaver wrote: >In SCR21, the test procedure says "Examine the source code and check >that the new content is not created using document.write(), >innerHTML, outerHTML, innerText or outerText." > >Some of the evaluation tools are flagging any use of these functions >as non-compliant with WCAG 2.0. But I don't think this is a correct >interpretation. It is only a failure if the intent was to use the >technique "Using functions of the Document Object Model (DOM) to add >content to a page". We don't have a failure technique around the use >of document.write(), innterHTML, etc. > >Perhaps we need to add a technique that demonstrates the correct use >of these functions. Such a technique might be perceived as encouraging the use of these non-DOM methods and as a step back for standards-based development. Instead of creating a technique for these functions, can we add a note to SCR21? Best regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ --- "Better products and services through end-user empowerment" http://www.usem-net.eu/ --- Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 20:35:46 UTC