W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: WCAG compliance question

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:26:58 -0600
Message-Id: <201602261523.u1QFN7Qf030066@d01av05.pok.ibm.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> On 26/02/2016 12:25, Richard (Userite) wrote:
> Yes the site needs to be accessible with CSS enabled AND with it 
disabled.

> On 26/022016, "Patrick H. Lauke" wrote
> I wouldn't say it's as clear cut as that, just as similar statements 
> like "a site must work even when JavaScript is disabled" aren't exactly 
> true either. Neither of these statements can be found anywhere in the 
> letter (nor the spirit, I'd argue) of WCAG 2.0.

Patrick, I agree with the spirit of your statement.  In fact the reference 
from Charles earlier in this thread explicity (normative language) does 
mention JavaScript and CSS. 

> as I read WCAG 2.0 it allows conformance claims to rely on particular 
> technology - See point 5 at 
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims.

The following are not my word or my intrepretation, but quoting from WCAG 
.20 itself:

5. A list of the Web content technologies relied upon. 

        Example: Some common examples of Web content technologies include 
HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript. 

        relied upon (technologies that are)
        the content would not conform if that technology is turned off or 
is not supported

Individual interpretation are just that, that individuals opinion, and 
often are not backed up by consesnsus arrived normative language of the 
WCAG 2.0 standard itself. I personally do not like the debating, but the 
fact remains that almost all web apps (not static web pages) require 
JavaScript and CSS in order to function.  We don't go around demanding the 
same with Windows desktop application or MacBook applications, that they 
run without the supporting underlying technology.  I belive people are 
continuing to incorrectly place the burden on the user, instead of on the 
browser or platform, when suggesting antiquated techiques like turning off 
CSS or JavaScript. 
_______________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins, 




From:   "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
To:     w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Date:   02/26/2016 07:16 AM
Subject:        Re: WCAG compliance question



On 26/02/2016 12:25, Richard (Userite) wrote:
> Yes the site needs to be accessible with CSS enabled AND with it 
disabled.

I wouldn't say it's as clear cut as that, just as similar statements 
like "a site must work even when JavaScript is disabled" aren't exactly 
true either. Neither of these statements can be found anywhere in the 
letter (nor the spirit, I'd argue) of WCAG 2.0.

> Developers can use CSS to "hide" messages that are aimed at people who
> use screen readers. For example most pages have a top navigation bar
> which requires a heading so that blind users can find it easily. However
> to stop the heading actually showing up on the page for sighted users
> CSS has been used such as, for example,  either {display:none;} or
> {position:left, -1999px;}
>
> It is not that visual users are getting less than blind users, just that
> additional help is provided for screen readers.
>
> The fact that your Jaws does not pick up this hidden text suggests that
> the CSS has been written incorrectly.

The "other things" mentioned in the original post may also well be 
dialog boxes, alerts, error messages etc which are intentionally styled 
with display:none to not be visible / absent from the DOM that's exposed 
to AT, and will only be made visible when appropriate. So again, it's 
not a clear-cut situation - without seeing the actual specific case, 
it's not possible to make generalised statements about things being 
incorrect.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 15:27:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 26 February 2016 15:27:43 UTC