Accessibility & html forms was Re: SVGt1.2: Text Box

Accessibility & html forms was Re: SVGt1.2: Text Box

---

Is it reasonable to release a web technology that does not contain in  
it's definition a means for the user to communicate?

--

David and others have suggested using html forms. There are quite a  
number of SVG tools that have no html, and in most probability may  
never support html.
However if one assumes that the UA is html versant, there are two  
methods, inline or embedded.

embedded is most likely to be unsuitable in most instances, as not  
only are there significant accessibility issues regarding embedding  
documents, but only part of the document will be redirected, this may  
be inconvenient for the user and author, and makes a mockery of  
bookmarking.

There is limited support for documents with mixed namespaces, and  
there remain significant accessibility problems navigating documents  
using mixed namespaces. I am not aware of any accessibility  
guidelines for such documents.
It seems unlikely these issues will be resolved in the short term.

It seems to me unreasonable to release a web technology that does not  
contain in it's definitions a means for the user to communicate.

regards
   
Jonathan Chetwynd

j.chetwynd@btinternet.com
http://www.peepo.com/

+44 (0) 20 7978 1764


On 17 Mar 2008, at 18:15, David Woolley wrote:


~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote:
> which is simple to understand does not provide anything similar to:
> html form: action or method, which aywk do not require script.
>  and it is in this sense that I feel the SVGt1.2 spec is not  
> acceptable.

Wasn't the design philosophy of SVG the XML one, i.e. you mix namespaces
to get non-graphical features.  I'm not sure if XFORMS is concrete
enough, but otherwise one would use actual HTML forms.

(This is a second attempt, for www-svg, as I mistyped it first time.  
Note that the yahoo groups cross post is a closed group and failed.   
I'm still waiting to see what happens to the webapi one.  Cross- 
posting email is not a good idea.)

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 08:56:12 UTC