W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2017

Re: Issue filed Re: Technical question about Javascript disabled option

From: Gregg Vanderheiden GPII <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:42:20 -0400
To: IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9D8F5C43-8F3A-4C3C-8412-0716888CD7B6@GPII.net>

I don’t know what this refers to (no context)  so I speaking a little bit in the dark here but….. two thoughts that MIGHT apply

if people with disabilities have no more problem than everyone else without disabilities  - then it is not an accessibility problem - it is usability and WCAG doesn’t cover non-accessibility issues. 

if the blank page IS an accessibility alternate to something then it is a failure of whatever it is an alternative to


> On Oct 6, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:07:32 +0200, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> Dear Giacomo,
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 19:34:48 +0200, Giacomo Petri
>> <giacomopetri89@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Display a blank page without any error message is considered a WCAG failure?
>> I don't think there is any success criteria in WCAG that this would fail,
>> so strictly speaking I would answer no. But like you, I think it is a
>> clear accessibility failure. Given a mechanism to determine that a user
>> has not enabled a feature that a page needs in order to function, I think
>> the page should explain that to the user. This would fit under the
>> principle of Understandable, and even in the spirit of guideline 3.2
>> Predictable: Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways.
>> I'll check, and if there isn't one raise an issue on the Guidelines...
> And filed: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/423
> cheers
> -- 
> Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile
> find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 12:42:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 6 December 2017 16:04:47 UTC