- From: daniel smith <websounding@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:24:44 -0500
- To: lubow_scott@bah.com
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
To: Lubow Scott Regarding sites using fly out menus that are readable by assistives. can you think of any examples offhand of this live at present? Thanks. Daniel Smith Verizon Wireless >From: "Lubow Scott" <lubow_scott@bah.com> >To: Beth Skwarecki <skwareea@screech.cs.alfred.edu> >CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org >Subject: Re: QUESTION: use of javascript to comply with Sect 508 >Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:31:19 -0500 > >Section 508 specifies performance criteria not design criteria. The >bottom line is that you can use technologies (JavaScript, DHTML, Java, >etc.) as long as they can be made accessible or you must provide an >equally accessible alternative. >As far as the fly-out menu example, by using layers you can create the >and assistive technologies will be able to read the links just like it >was a list. > >-- >Scott > > > >David Poehlman wrote: > > > > I wish this were the case al but in truth, 508 allows for > > implementation of javascript in a slightly different way as I see it > > than wcag does. The board reversed their decision not to allow > > javascript it seems because they decided to require sites that have a > > time limit to provide a way of opting out of the time limit and they > > needed to allow java script for that to happen. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Beth Skwarecki" <skwareea@screech.cs.alfred.edu> > > To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> > > Sent: January 04, 2001 11:55 AM > > Subject: Re: QUESTION: use of javascript to comply with Sect 508 > > > > Not to start another flamewar or anything, but here's the unofficial > > explanation from the FAQ: > > > > "The 1986 version of Section 508 established non-binding guidelines > > for > > technology accessibility, while the 1998 version creates binding, > > enforceable standards and will incorporate these standards into > > Federal > > procurement regulations. Federal agencies will use these standards in > > all > > their electronic and information technology acquisitions. Consistent > > government-wide standards will make it easier for Federal agencies to > > meet > > their existing obligations to make their technology systems accessible > > to > > people with disabilities, and will promote competition in the > > technology > > industry by clarifying the Federal market's requirement for > > accessibility in > > products intended for general use. The new version of Section 508 also > > establishes a complaint procedure and reporting requirements, which > > further > > strengthen the law." > > > > Note the bit about "binding, enforceable standards". If it's a law > > that > > people will be held to, you can bet that they're going to try to > > weasel out > > of it. Just wondering about loopholes here, and hopefully the actual > > language includes appropriate definitions. > > > > --beth > > > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:44:30AM -0500, Al Gilman wrote: > > > At 10:19 AM 2001-01-04 -0500, Beth Skwarecki wrote: > > > >> Here's the text: > > > >> (l) When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or > > to create > > > >> interface elements, the information provided by the script shall > > be > > > >> identified with functional text that can be read by assistive > > technology. > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > [identification, not an equivalent?] > > > > > > > >That sounds like it would be valid just to have text saying "if you > > can't > > > >see this DHTML menu, you're missing a really nice DHTML menu. > > Goodbye." > > > >Surely that's not what they mean?! > > > > > > > > > > AG:: > > > > > > Just as it is easy to read 'identified' in a way that is too loose, > > it is easy > > > to read 'equivalent' in a way that is too tight. We have had lots > > of problems > > > with people not grasping the optional [rough] implied where we talk > > about > > > equivalents. What is really intended in either case (WCAG or 508) > > is > > > something > > > in the middle where the stretch to describe it either way is just a > > little > > > stretch. > > > > -- > > http://playground.alfred.edu/~bethnewt/ ><< smime.p7s >> _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2001 23:25:20 UTC