RE: Questions about WCAG 6.3

Sorry, but you are missing the boat on this one!

Adherence to 6.3 is of critical importance.  JavaScript dependent web pages
are probably the second biggest accessibility obstacle faced by persons with
disabilities!  (Missing ALT content has got to be first, but bear in mind
that it is disingenuous to rank P1 checkpoints in this fashion.)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Joel Sanda
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:44 PM
> To: W3C/WAI
> Subject: Questions about WCAG 6.3
>
>
> Hi;
>
> I've got some questions (well, alright, problems:)
> with WCAG 6.3. Wondering if anyone can shed some light
> on that requirement for me.
>
> 1. Since no browser supports all WCAG requirements,
> it's impossible to build a site that is 100% compliant
> with all WCAG levels AND functions in all browsers.
>
> 2. Since the best support for the WCAG lies in
> Internet Explorer 4.x, it seems logical most people
> looking for an accessible site will hit it in IE4.x.
> This is born out by my research of screen readers.
> JAWs is the most popular, and that runs with IE4.x or
> higher. HomePage Reader requires a 4.x version of
> Netscape.
>
> 3. Give 1. and 2., I argue that the scripting
> requirement 6.3 is far too restrictive.
>
> In my environment, we rely on JavaScript to ensure
> forms are filled out correctly and the database
> doesn't get cluttered with incorrect information. In
> fact, anyone using a database and a form will probably
> use JavaScript to ensure forms are filled out
> correctly. Imagine the chaos with eCommerce if a site
> couldn't ensure it's users entered data correctly.
> This site would be accessible, but one mistake and the
> user is out of their money, the product, and the
> vendor and shopper have to solve a problem that could
> have been prevented with JavaScript.
>
> That in and of itself is an aid to accessibility: it
> gives people two chances to fill out forms - their
> data entry pass and the verification pass. Usually,
> the JavaScript error checking gives more detailed
> information to the user if there is an error.
>
> I know there's the component of "universal
> accessibility", but IMHO #6.3 is just far too
> restrictive for most companies to consider.
>
> Thoughts? Am I missing the boat on this one?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joel Sanda
> joelsanda@yahoo.com

Received on Friday, 24 March 2000 17:34:15 UTC