W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: JavaScript and Accessibility

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:48:47 +0100
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
To: "Jesper Tverskov" <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk>
Message-Id: <B375CBF8-9D62-11D7-ADC4-0003939B5AD0@btinternet.com>

why am I not amazed no one has mentioned:
Client-side Scripting Techniques for Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines 2.0
This is coming up for a year old, and needs plenty more contributions.

determining that we need a site to provide suitable content without 
javascript barely scratches the surface. it is important to recognise 
that we don't yet have a sensible or sensitive alternative to games, 
thus this guideline is almost meaningless in this respect. playing ludo 
has little if anything to do with "alt=ludo game" this may be 
accessible by current standards, but is not in the spirit of 
accessibility. providing a page of game instructions is not good enough 
either. what is needed is a description of what makes an accessible 
game, and some excellent examples.
(Game is used to mean interactive experience on a single page.)

One needs to consider whom one is enabling. reasons that javascript can 
aid accessibility are numerous. alternative technologies such as CSS 
can and should replace some scripts.

http://www.peepo.com uses javascript to create interactive learning 
to play a sound onmouseover
to preclude a need for scroll bars (liquid)
to enable the letter keyboard to be interactive, encouraging 
development of literacy skills, play music.....
to track the mouse, and respond appropriately.
to provide alternative means of printing to the standard browser 
'print' button.
to disable mice buttons, for users who may not yet be ready for 
buttons. some activities that have helped some of our least able users 
gain confidence and learn mouse / touchscreen skills are here: 
http://www.peepo.com/alfi-x/splat.html . take a look and see if you can 
work out why they are like they are. If you have an idea how they could 
enable without javascript let me know, I'd love them to be more 
accessible, but am not going to provide something that is of very 
little benefit to anyone, as a sop to accessibility.



On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 01:23  pm, Jesper Tverskov wrote:

> WAICAG, checkpoint 6.3 [priority 1], tells us that a web page should 
> be usable if the user agent has turned the script object off or does 
> not support it, e.g. JavaScript.
> I try to live up to this guideline, not because of the guideline, but 
> because it gives me a nice feeling of BEST PRACTICE, of having a sound 
> and solid foundation to build on.
> But I would like to know if it actually benefits anybody:
> 1) Do we have any users with disabilities that have to use a user 
> agent not supporting JavaScript?
> 2) Why do some people want to use a no-JavaScript browser like Lynx?
> 3) Why do we not have a similar guideline about scripts in Section 508?
> Best regards,
> Jesper Tverskov

Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 01:45:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC