W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: date pickers

From: adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:26:29 +0300
Message-ID: <CALKv3=h2hF+ZsAjLkuUNT3YdVLmmjNk=ua+S+cabkSwq-scn8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
Cc: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, 508 <508@access-board.gov>
I was going to weigh in against Sailesh on this one (in fact I was the one
who posted the original question in the WebAim list), yet he then brought up
an important point - even if we assume the textbox option is easier, it is
still missing information about what day of the week a particular date falls
on. So, even though we have an alternative to inputting the date, we don't
have an alternative to the content which is provided by the datepicker as to
days of the week. The question I have is - where do we draw the line. Can we
consider such content to be secondary, or do we require all content to have
an alternative to be wcag conformant. This question really applies to many
situations. Is there any leeway as to not providing alternatives to
secondary, perhaps less important content.
What say you all?

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@access-board.gov>wrote:

> Very interesting discussion Sailesh and David.  Thanks too for the links to
> the web aim discussion and Aria example.  I have to confess that my favorite
> comment was “Often the accessible date-pickers are more work than just
> typing it in and is something you should consider.”****
> ** **
> This comes up in the Federal sphere with 508 and the on-going consensus at
> this point is that a properly labeled text box option is a sufficient
> alternative to a pop-up date picker.  That is not the same judgment call
> that would be made for a calendar program (where, as Sailesh describes,
> knowing the day of the week, adjacent appointments, and full keyboard
> navigation would all be essential).****
> ** **
> --
> Bruce Bailey
> Accessibility IT Specialist
> U.S. Access Board
> 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000
> Washington, DC  20004-1111
> 202-272-0024 (voice)
> 202-272-0082 (TTY, shared)
> 202-272-0081 (Fax, shared)
> bailey@access-board.gov****
>  ****
> Thank you for your questions concerning section 508 of the Rehabilitation
> Act Amendments of 1998.  Section 508 authorizes the Access Board to provide
> technical assistance to individuals and Federal departments and agencies
> concerning the requirements of this section.  This technical assistance is
> intended solely as informal guidance and is not a determination of the legal
> rights or responsibilities of entities subject to section 508.****
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 12:27:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:08 UTC