RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Hi Leon,
I must firmly agree.
In this case, The Canadian government is making wacg 2.0 the standard 
requirement for all government sites, including those regulated like Bell.
My personal understanding has always been that public sites, those that 
are involved in public services or belong to government regulated 
companies should allow for functionality outside of java script.  It 
creates a better chance of a level playing field, people who because of 
income have not been able to change, people using older technology or older 
platforms or whatever.
Not only is the Java script door a risk, so is the "popular screen 
reader"one.
they are claiming that 16% of their site users have  chrome, although I 
have not asked how many of that percentage are their customers experiencing 
disabilities.
For me personally due to a secondary experience if I use jaws, I would 
be unconscious or dizzy at the least...so should my phone company tell me 
how 
to accommodate my disability by deciding what screen reader I am allowed to 
use?  They do this by testing only with jaws, deciding everyone is in windows 
as a result etc.
And they use wacg wording to justify this activity.
Such violates the spirit of access in my view.
Karen

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, ANDERSEN, Leon wrote:

> Further to Steve's comments, with regard to baseline technology, I think that declaration should be carefully considered dependant on the audience and the service/product/functionality being provided.
>
> If it is a public domain site and an essential service e.g. a government service, declaring that the user must have JavaScript is going to potentially create a lot of problems. In this case I would work with a model of progressive enhancement; all users can access the site without JavaScript but where it is available it adds the bells and whistles.
>
> I think a service provider who declares this is how we designed our site/product and this is what you must use is asking for trouble and still living back in the days of the browser wars.
>
> Design for flexibility and inclusivity.
>
> Leon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Green [mailto:steve.green@testpartners.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012 2:00 PM
> To: Karen Lewellen; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> There are a number of separate issues here, including:
>
> 1. The phrase 'full accessibility' is meaningless - there is no such thing. Full compliance with a particular accessibility specification such as WCAG 2.0 level AA is possible. However, such a website may still be inaccessible to some people to some degree.
>
> 2. If you are talking about WCAG compliance, the browser you test with is largely irrelevant because the success criteria are written such as to be browser agnostic.
>
> However, in practice there are differences, so we use more than one browser to test certain success criteria. An example is zooming - you would have thought that all browsers would be identical in this respect, but for some reason we sometimes see differences.
>
> Another example is 'skip' links. They work in Internet Explorer and Firefox but they don't work in Chrome, Safari or Opera unless you use a JavaScript hack.
>
> 3. If Bell declare JavaScript to be part of their technology baseline, then the website does not need to work without JavaScript enabled. However, all the JavaScript features must be implemented in an accessible manner.
>
> 4. I don't know what you mean by 'script buttons'. However, a button is not accessible if it cannot be operated using keyboard controls. That is a very clear WCAG requirement.
>
> Steve Green
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
> Sent: 13 December 2012 02:33
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?
>
>
> I ask for two reasons.
> I believe there is a difference between java script, and the use of script buttons that require a physical mouse click.  I am in a dispute with bell the telecommunications company in Canada.
> They have made two claims,
> first that testing with firefox and chrome equal full accessibility, and second, that the use of java script  represents wacg 2.0 compliance.
> My point to them referencing   several  script button, which to the best of my
> knowledge is not the same thing.
>  what say you?
> first is it enough to test a site with firefox and chrome to insure access in terms of the guidelines, second, are java script and the use of script buttons that need a mouse click he same thing?
> and third, if not, as i suspect, how can I articulate this clearly?
> What I  would appreciate is   the sort of answer that is detailed enough for me
> to include in my reply to the company's latest communication.
>
> thanks in advance,
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 04:22:49 UTC