W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Using Form Elements for Pages only Intended for Printing

From: Carol Foster <c.foster@umassp.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:55:45 -0500
Message-ID: <3C3EEEE0.1C501EE1@umassp.edu>
To: Patrick Burke <burke@ucla.edu>
CC: gdeering@acslink.net.au, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Yes, this was our thinking, but we omitted the instructions at the beginning, which
I think we should add.

After pondering the JavaScript comments, I think now that the Print button should
be left out because of the case where JS may be enabled, but assistive technology,
such as an older version of JAWS, may not support it.  (So my reading is that the
Print button even with <noscript> would violate WAI 6.3, since the page should work
even if the scripts are "not supported".)


Patrick Burke wrote:

> As a blind person I would say that the form element version is much friendlier.
> If underscore or other characters are used to mark the input fields, then I
> (or anyone really) has to copy the page to a word processor (possibly
> losing original formatting), then fill in the ___ sections (& hope that
> doesn't mess up the formatting beyond recognition).
> The version with form markup would let me move quickly and accurately among
> the input fields, & their location on the page would be maintained
> automatically. So, other than the possibility of entering 3 pages of text
> into an edit field, the printout would match the original form more
> exactly. Which is, as I understand it, what people dealing with print forms
> want.
> So, I would vote in favor of forms markup, with a statement at the
> beginning that the form is for printing purposes and cannot be submitted
> online.
> Patrick

Carol Foster, Web Developer
University of Massachusetts, President's Office
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 08:54:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:06 UTC