- From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 06:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
- To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: 508 <508@access-board.gov>
>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. Sailesh: The date picker is not decorative and it has not been included on the Web page as an ornament. People talk about cost of real estate and apply a lot of thought, design principles and usability factors in designing Web pages or o I imagine. The distinction between primary and secondary content is not germane to the discussion here. As I said all users can use an edit box but one needs to look at a calendar and determine day of week to travel, set doctor's appointment, select date for bill pay transaction, etc. And if one believes this is the prerogative of only those who can see with 20/20 vision and use a mouse then all discussion about accessibility is a farce. And I reiterate, there is NO UNDUE BURDEN as it can be done using technology that has existed since pre-2000 days. You may not even realize it, but if really anyone needs to look at a date picker calendar, it is the vision impaired chap ... he cannot quickly glance at a desk calendar or a wall calendar. And I believe technology is a leveller. Would you like to counter that? Sailesh
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 13:17:25 UTC