E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 19 (In chronological order)

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Fri, Jan 06 2006 9:40AM
Subject: Section 508 Question
No previous message | Next message →

As I am less familiar with compliance to Section 508, perhaps somebody
could answer a question for me.

Checkpoint Section 1194.22(l) states: "When pages utilize scripting
languages to display content, or to create interface elements, the
information provided by the script shall be identified with functional
text that can be read by assistive technology."

The question is this: if the JS provides core functionality (for example
a text input that fires on "OnSelect" without the presence of a submit
button), does this fail the "interface element" criteria, even though
there really is no means of providing "functional text"?

Instinctively I know it is "wrong", but does it fail on the technical
merit as well? Ideally an authoritive reference would be the best, but
otherwise some experienced input would be great.

Thanks in advance.

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Sat, Jan 07 2006 5:00AM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question and Scripting languages
← Previous message | Next message →

I am based in Ireland so please forgive me if I am speaking out of turn. The post brought up a couple of issues for me
so I am creating a new thread.

> The question is this: if the JS provides core functionality (for example
> a text input that fires on "OnSelect" without the presence of a submit
> button), does this fail the "interface element" criteria, even though
> there really is no means of providing "functional text"?

Should you use JS or other non-supported scripting languages for core functionality at all?.

JS has a "do-not-touch " status in the world of accessibility that I think is unwarranted.
This may change in the future when support for scripting languages improves (if). JS is a potent and powerful
client side scripting language and has much promise for powerful Web based applications via the DOM.

Anyway, the checkpoint to my mind is worded in a rather convoluted fashion. It could be more straightforward.
What the checkpoint refers to as "functional text" seems to refer to "indication of function", in that if you click this button, this action will happen.
This should always be clear for all to see.

Interface elements can be designed so anything "under the hood" can be shown to the user in a clear fashion.
So practically, its a matter of using good design supported by languages that AT devices will currently recognise.

As an aside, it is better (IMO) that websites and other ICT's are practically accessible and usable rather than the onus being on fitting with
or failing on an obscurely (or badly) worded checkpoint. I realise this whole issue does have teeth however, as under federal law in the US you need to be 508 compliant. It is not like this in Europe and it brings up the issue of "getting the standards right" from the beginning.

Joshue O Connor

Web Accessibility Consultant

**Centre for Inclusive Technology (CFIT)* *
National Council for the Blind of Ireland

CFIT Website:www.cfit.ie
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = +353 1 8821915






John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> As I am less familiar with compliance to Section 508, perhaps somebody
> could answer a question for me.
>
> Checkpoint Section 1194.22(l) states: "When pages utilize scripting
> languages to display content, or to create interface elements, the
> information provided by the script shall be identified with functional
> text that can be read by assistive technology."
>
> The question is this: if the JS provides core functionality (for example
> a text input that fires on "OnSelect" without the presence of a submit
> button), does this fail the "interface element" criteria, even though
> there really is no means of providing "functional text"?
>
> Instinctively I know it is "wrong", but does it fail on the technical
> merit as well? Ideally an authoritive reference would be the best, but
> otherwise some experienced input would be great.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> JF
> --
> John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
> Web Accessibility Testing and Services
> http://www.wats.ca
> Phone: 1-613-482-7053
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Sat, Jan 07 2006 5:40AM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question and Scripting languages
← Previous message | Next message →

I am based in Ireland so please forgive me if I am speaking out of turn. The post brought up a couple of issues for me
so I am creating a new thread.

> The question is this: if the JS provides core functionality (for example
> a text input that fires on "OnSelect" without the presence of a submit
> button), does this fail the "interface element" criteria, even though
> there really is no means of providing "functional text"?

Should you use JS or other non-supported scripting languages for core functionality at all?.

JS has a "do-not-touch " status in the world of accessibility that I think is unwarranted.
This may change in the future when support for scripting languages improves (if). JS is a potent and powerful
client side scripting language and has much promise for powerful Web based applications via the DOM.

Anyway, the checkpoint to my mind is worded in a rather convoluted fashion. It could be more straightforward.
What the checkpoint refers to as "functional text" seems to refer to "indication of function", in that if you click this button, this action will happen.
This should always be clear for all to see.

Interface elements can be designed so anything "under the hood" can be shown to the user in a clear fashion.
So practically, its a matter of using good design supported by languages that AT devices will currently recognise.

As an aside, it is better (IMO) that websites and other ICT's are practically accessible and usable rather than the onus being on fitting with
or failing on an obscurely (or badly) worded checkpoints. I realise this whole issue does have teeth however, as under federal law in the US you need to be 508 compliant. It is not like this in Europe and it brings up the issue of "getting the standards right" from the beginning.

Joshue O Connor

Web Accessibility Consultant

**Centre for Inclusive Technology (CFIT)* *
National Council for the Blind of Ireland

CFIT Website:www.cfit.ie
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = +353 1 8821915






John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> As I am less familiar with compliance to Section 508, perhaps somebody
> could answer a question for me.
>
> Checkpoint Section 1194.22(l) states: "When pages utilize scripting
> languages to display content, or to create interface elements, the
> information provided by the script shall be identified with functional
> text that can be read by assistive technology."
>
> The question is this: if the JS provides core functionality (for example
> a text input that fires on "OnSelect" without the presence of a submit
> button), does this fail the "interface element" criteria, even though
> there really is no means of providing "functional text"?
>
> Instinctively I know it is "wrong", but does it fail on the technical
> merit as well? Ideally an authoritive reference would be the best, but
> otherwise some experienced input would be great.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> JF
> --
> John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
> Web Accessibility Testing and Services
> http://www.wats.ca
> Phone: 1-613-482-7053
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: John E. Brandt
Date: Sat, Jan 07 2006 11:00AM
Subject: RE: Section 508 Question and Scripting languages
← Previous message | Next message →

<<<clip>>>Should you use JS or other non-supported scripting languages for
core functionality at all?.

>JS has a "do-not-touch " status in the world of accessibility that I think
is unwarranted.

>This may change in the future when support for scripting languages improves
(if). JS is a potent and powerful client side scripting language and has
much promise for powerful Web based applications via the DOM. <<clip>>

Joshue makes an interesting point and one that I am struggling with
regarding a client who recently has asks me to review their site which uses
a significant amount of Flash objects for the navigation. I also routinely
review sites with large amounts of JavaScript and then have to engage in the
same type of questioning the other writers comment on; "is this functional?"


My general philosophy in web design is that of "universal design" and I
generally adhere to a prescription to keep content and presentation
separate. In addition to the accessibility issues, it is fairly clear that
the movement to alternative user agents dictates the need to separate the
two. Coupled with this is the phenomenal growth of Web 2.0 elements like RSS
Feeds which show us that the content, and the ability to manage and control
it is more important to the user than the presentation.

BTW, I would revise Joshue's last sentence above to read, "...has much
promise for powerful BROWSER based applications via the DOM." I have to
wonder if the days of browsers might not be numbered.

Perhaps as the alternative user agents flourish these scripts will be
expanded to cover additional agents. However, we need to recognize that the
"web of the future" may be engaged on the side of a toaster or microwave
oven or on devices that haven't been invented yet.

Devotees talk about JavaScripting providing functionality to web sites but
generally these are only for those users who are not blind or visually
impaired. And they only, for the moment work on traditional web browsers.

So, for now, I vote to use scripts sparingly and continue to evaluate on a
case-by-case basis. And, I look forward to what others have to say on this
matter.


John E. Brandt
Augusta, ME USA
www.jebswebs.com
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Sun, Jan 08 2006 6:20AM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:

> Checkpoint Section 1194.22(l) states: "When pages utilize scripting
> languages to display content, or to create interface elements, the
> information provided by the script shall be identified with functional
> text that can be read by assistive technology."

The formulation is confusing - surely not in a language that would meet
the WCAG 1.0 guideline on simplest language possible! It sounds like it
was first sketched without the text "or to create interface elements",
which was added later, as an afterthought, without considering how well it
fits to the rest of the sentence. An interface element is not information
in the normal sense of the word. Moreover, the meaning of "identified" is
obscure, though perhaps intentionally. I would read it as meaning that the
information provided by the script shall be _given_ as normal text that is
available without scripting _or_ (if that is not possible) _referenced_
that way, so that the user knows how to access it or at least knows about
it.

It's a questionable requirement, since it forbids, for example, the
creation of an "extra comfort" type of interface elements, such as a
button for selecting all checkboxes in a set. Such a button just adds a
shortcut. Properly implemented, there is no disturbance to users with
scripting disabled. Yet the rule says that "information" shall be
"identified". (Well, if an author adds <noscript>(If you used this page
with client-side scripting enabled, you would have a button for checking
all the checkboxes.)</script>, it's perhaps not too disturbing, and might
even be useful in rare cases.)

The interpretations and explanations at
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm#(l)
can probably be characterized as semi-official. It is however rather
questionable, since it begins with an obscure explanation that probably
results from completely misunderstanding the problem and having no clue of
any solutions:

"Web page authors have a responsibility to provide script information in a
fashion that can be read by assistive technology. When authors do not put
functional text with a script, a screen reader will often read the content
of the script itself in a meaningless jumble of numbers and letters.
Although this jumble is text, it cannot be interpreted or used."

I cannot decipher that, but it seems to relate to some ideas about
the ways to present the _script code_.

It also promotes the use of javascript: URLs (which do not
conform to any specification) and claimes that
<a href="javascript:myFunction();">Start myFunction</a>
does not cause accessibility problems for assistive technology! It then
switches to alt attributes for images (a quite distinct problem) and
promotes the absurdity
alt="picture link for starting myFunction"

Then it says something about the status line - something rather
irrelevant, unless we postulate the use of javascript: URLs and consider
different ways to create new problems by attempts to solve the assumed
problem of hard-to-read status lines.

Finally, it discusses event attributes. The discussion is mostly confused,
but it says:
"If clicking on the element associated with the onClick event handler
triggers a function or performs some other action, developers should
ensure that the context makes that fact clear to all users."
By definition, an onClick event handler always performs an action.
The question is what "the context" means. I would say that things can
be clear to _all_ users only if written out explicitly. This is quite
a requirement, of course.

> The question is this: if the JS provides core functionality (for example
> a text input that fires on "OnSelect" without the presence of a submit
> button), does this fail the "interface element" criteria, even though
> there really is no means of providing "functional text"?

I'm not sure what "functional text" means. Text that is a link? Would the
text in a submit button qualify? In the latter case,
<noscript><input type="submit" value="Send"></noscript>
might qualify, assuming of course that you mean that there is no submit
button in the normal content.

But if I were in a jury and the charge was violation of rule (l) in a
case like this, I would have to vote "not guilty" anyway. The script does
not present information and it does not create an interface element,
so the rule does not apply to it at all.

Rule (l), as I see it, refers to information presented via scripting, e.g.
using the alert() function or changing the content of a field or by
generating stuff with document.write() or some more advanced tools.
Irrespectictively of this, it would make sense to require that such
information be available, at least indirectly (via a link), when scripting
is disabled. But this would not be enough, since people may use software
that cannot access all content presented via scripting and yet has
scripting enabled, so that e.g. <noscript>...</noscript> is not a
solution. Regarding new interface elements, the event attributes do not
technically create new elements, so we might say (somewhat dishonestly,
but with good intentions) that the rule does not apply to them.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 6:20AM
Subject: RE: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Checkpoint Section 1194.22(l) states: "When pages utilize scripting
> > languages to display content, or to create interface elements, the
> > information provided by the script shall be identified with
> functional
> > text that can be read by assistive technology."

> intentionally. I would read it as meaning that the
> information provided by the script shall be _given_ as normal
> text that is available without scripting _or_ (if that is not
> possible) _referenced_ that way, so that the user knows how
> to access it or at least knows about it.

This checkpoint doesn't set any requirements for the page to work with
scripting off, just that the content created by the script needs to be
exposed via the operating system in a way that is familiar to screen
readers or other assisitve techologies.

> It's a questionable requirement, since it forbids, for
> example, the creation of an "extra comfort" type of interface
> elements, such as a button for selecting all checkboxes in a
> set. Such a button just adds a shortcut.

This would not be prohibited. The button would need to have text that
indicates the purpose of the button, which is straightforward.

> (Well, if an author adds <noscript>(If you used
> this page with client-side scripting enabled, you would have
> a button for checking all the checkboxes.)</script>, it's
> perhaps not too disturbing, and might even be useful in rare cases.)

But not for a JAWS user, since JAWS doesn't read noscript content.

> > The question is this: if the JS provides core functionality (for
> > example a text input that fires on "OnSelect" without the
> presence of
> > a submit button), does this fail the "interface element" criteria,
> > even though there really is no means of providing "functional text"?

No, this doesn't fail in any section508 criteria. It is, however, not a
good or useable practice.

AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Accessibility Engineer
Adobe Systems
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 7:00AM
Subject: RE: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> This checkpoint doesn't set any requirements for the page to work with
> scripting off, just that the content created by the script needs to be
> exposed via the operating system in a way that is familiar to screen
> readers or other assisitve techologies.
>

Thank you Andrew for what appears to be the real answer to my original
question. If I understand you correctly then the following:

<a href="javascript:changeLanguage();" alt="Choose a language
and click the arrow to got to that language content."><img
src="images/general/langArrow.gif" width=33 height=24 border=0
alt="Choose a language and click the arrow to got to that language
content."></a>

...While dumb from a usability perspective (and second, has poor alt
text anyway), is technically acceptable for Section 508 compliance,
right? (As the image alt text is the "...functional text that can be
read by assistive technology.")

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 7:40AM
Subject: RE: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

> <a href="javascript:changeLanguage();" alt="Choose a
> language and click the arrow to got to that language
> content."><img src="images/general/langArrow.gif" width=33
> height=24 border=0 alt="Choose a language and click the arrow
> to got to that language content."></a>
>
> ...While dumb from a usability perspective (and second, has
> poor alt text anyway), is technically acceptable for Section
> 508 compliance, right? (As the image alt text is the
> "...functional text that can be read by assistive technology.

Technically, yes. This type of scripting is allowed under Section 508.
AWK

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 8:20AM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

On 1/9/06, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Even "alt" for a link ?
> > The easy way out is to create the link via JavaScript.
>
> The alt on the anchor is not correct, obviously, and is redundant to the
> contained image's alt.
>
> I was referring to the use of <a href="javascript:foo();"...> as OK
> under 508. There is an infinite universe of incorrect things that can
> be done that are not specifically banned under 508.

One more example where we should remember that we develop for human
beings and not for guidelines or validators.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 9:40AM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Christian Heilmann wrote:

>> Technically, yes. This type of scripting is allowed under Section 508.
>> AWK
>
> Even "alt" for a link ?

So it seems. Section 508 rules do not require compliance to published
specifications of markup languages even at the syntactic level. (This is
as such a reasonable decision, IMHO.)

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 10:20AM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question and Scripting languages
← Previous message | Next message →

> LG already has the internet fridge:

Great. I'll ditch my laptop!!

>> I think AJAX is truly amazing when used as a 'bonus' layer. You often
>> see it used as THE layer to interact with the data, though, and that's a
>> risky proposition, IMHO.

Interesting. Darrel, Do you know any good resources for more info on AJAX
that you would like to share??

Josh



Austin, Darrel wrote:
>>>Coupled with this is the phenomenal growth of Web 2.0 elements like
>>>RSS Feeds which show us that the content, and the ability to manage
>>>and control it is more important to the user than the presentation.
>>
>>As John indicates the days of the Browser could be numbered
>>or at least, its monopoly as the preferred method for users
>>to access content.
>
>
> I gave a presentation a few years ago talking about that very issue. In
> fact, it's been going on for some time.
>
>
>>We already have such a diverse range of
>>PDA's, and other mobile devices that the ability to
>>effectively manage this content (going forward) hangs on that
>>content being "structured".
>
>
> Absolutely! The list of common non-desktop-browsing devices that access
> web data is getting rather long:
>
> - newsreaders
> - PDAs
> - cell phones
> - compact laptops
> - Apple's Sherlock
> - Apple's iTunes
> - Apple's Widgets
> - Yahoo's Widgets (Konfabulator)
> - (and I'm sure there are more...suggestions?)
>
>
>>Perhaps as the alternative user agents flourish these scripts
>>will be expanded to cover additional agents. However, we need
>>to recognize that the "web of the future" may be engaged on
>>the side of a toaster or microwave oven or on devices that
>>haven't been invented yet.
>
>
> LG already has the internet fridge:
>
> - http://www.lginternetfamily.co.uk/fridge.asp
>
>
>>I suppose the thrust of my post is that I am curious about
>>the place that scripting languages have in the "Brave New Now".
>
>
> I think AJAX is truly amazing when used as a 'bonus' layer. You often
> see it used as THE layer to interact with the data, though, and that's a
> risky proposition, IMHO.
>
> -Darrel
>
>
>
>
>

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 11:00AM
Subject: RE: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

Christian Heilmann wrote:
> One more example where we should remember that we develop for human
> beings and not for guidelines or validators.

Amen!

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 11:40AM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question and Scripting languages
← Previous message | Next message →

On 1/9/06, Joshue O Connor < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > LG already has the internet fridge:
>
> Great. I'll ditch my laptop!!
>
> >> I think AJAX is truly amazing when used as a 'bonus' layer. You often
> >> see it used as THE layer to interact with the data, though, and that's a
> >> risky proposition, IMHO.
>
> Interesting. Darrel, Do you know any good resources for more info on AJAX
> that you would like to share??
>
> Josh

Where have you lived the last 2 years :-)

http://www.ajaxian.com/

I have the same problem: I am writing a book for Apress about Usable
JavaScript at the moment, and of course an AJAX chapter is an absolute
must. I like the idea of AJAX, but I have a hard time finding an
example that is not just flashy nice-to-have.

Autosuggestion form fields? This is what Firefox does for me and
without server interaction every time I type a character - which can
be really annoying.

I think I'll go with a connected dropdown example.

I really like the gmail autosave - as - draft option, that is a great
example of useful AJAX.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 12:20PM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question and Scripting languages
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks for the link Christian and good look with the book. Do let us know when it
is materializing and Darrel cheers for the Internet fridge thing.

Every home should have one or will have one more like :)

Josh

Christian Heilmann wrote:
> On 1/9/06, Joshue O Connor < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>>>LG already has the internet fridge:
>>
>>Great. I'll ditch my laptop!!
>>
>>
>>>>I think AJAX is truly amazing when used as a 'bonus' layer. You often
>>>>see it used as THE layer to interact with the data, though, and that's a
>>>>risky proposition, IMHO.
>>
>>Interesting. Darrel, Do you know any good resources for more info on AJAX
>>that you would like to share??
>>
>>Josh
>
>
> Where have you lived the last 2 years :-)
>
> http://www.ajaxian.com/
>
> I have the same problem: I am writing a book for Apress about Usable
> JavaScript at the moment, and of course an AJAX chapter is an absolute
> must. I like the idea of AJAX, but I have a hard time finding an
> example that is not just flashy nice-to-have.
>
> Autosuggestion form fields? This is what Firefox does for me and
> without server interaction every time I type a character - which can
> be really annoying.
>
> I think I'll go with a connected dropdown example.
>
> I really like the gmail autosave - as - draft option, that is a great
> example of useful AJAX.
>
> --
> Chris Heilmann
> Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
> Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
> Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
>
>
>
>
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 1:40PM
Subject: RE: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

> Even "alt" for a link ?
> The easy way out is to create the link via JavaScript.

The alt on the anchor is not correct, obviously, and is redundant to the
contained image's alt.

I was referring to the use of <a href="javascript:foo();"...> as OK
under 508. There is an infinite universe of incorrect things that can
be done that are not specifically banned under 508.

AWK

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 2:20PM
Subject: RE: Section 508 Question and Scripting languages
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Coupled with this is the phenomenal growth of Web 2.0 elements like
> > RSS Feeds which show us that the content, and the ability to manage
> > and control it is more important to the user than the presentation.
>
> As John indicates the days of the Browser could be numbered
> or at least, its monopoly as the preferred method for users
> to access content.

I gave a presentation a few years ago talking about that very issue. In
fact, it's been going on for some time.

> We already have such a diverse range of
> PDA's, and other mobile devices that the ability to
> effectively manage this content (going forward) hangs on that
> content being "structured".

Absolutely! The list of common non-desktop-browsing devices that access
web data is getting rather long:

- newsreaders
- PDAs
- cell phones
- compact laptops
- Apple's Sherlock
- Apple's iTunes
- Apple's Widgets
- Yahoo's Widgets (Konfabulator)
- (and I'm sure there are more...suggestions?)

> Perhaps as the alternative user agents flourish these scripts
> will be expanded to cover additional agents. However, we need
> to recognize that the "web of the future" may be engaged on
> the side of a toaster or microwave oven or on devices that
> haven't been invented yet.

LG already has the internet fridge:

- http://www.lginternetfamily.co.uk/fridge.asp

> I suppose the thrust of my post is that I am curious about
> the place that scripting languages have in the "Brave New Now".

I think AJAX is truly amazing when used as a 'bonus' layer. You often
see it used as THE layer to interact with the data, though, and that's a
risky proposition, IMHO.

-Darrel

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 3:00PM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

On 1/9/06, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > <a href="javascript:changeLanguage();" alt="Choose a
> > language and click the arrow to got to that language
> > content."><img src="images/general/langArrow.gif" width=33
> > height=24 border=0 alt="Choose a language and click the arrow
> > to got to that language content."></a>
> >
> > ...While dumb from a usability perspective (and second, has
> > poor alt text anyway), is technically acceptable for Section
> > 508 compliance, right? (As the image alt text is the
> > "...functional text that can be read by assistive technology.
>
> Technically, yes. This type of scripting is allowed under Section 508.
> AWK

Even "alt" for a link ?

The easy way out is to create the link via JavaScript.


--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 3:40PM
Subject: RE: Section 508 Question
← Previous message | Next message →

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:

> This checkpoint doesn't set any requirements for the page to work with
> scripting off, just that the content created by the script needs to be
> exposed via the operating system in a way that is familiar to screen
> readers or other assisitve techologies.

That's probably the idea behind it, but then the rule is far too vague as
a legal requirement. (Well, it is anyway.) Does it mean _all_ screen
readers or other assistive technologies? If it does, it is impossible to
satisfy - partly because there are technologies that do not interpret
scripts at all, partly because an author cannot really guarantee that the
content is exposed in any particular way. If we limit ourselves to some
set of technologies, then those technologies should be clearly identified
to make the rule well-defined.

I'm afraid this is one of the points where the mission of Section 508 has
failed: the rule is far too obscure (even as informal description, not to
mention requirement to be imposed), and the Access Board explanations make
it even more obscure (and do not mention Andrew's point at all).

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Mon, Jan 09 2006 4:20PM
Subject: Re: Section 508 Question and Scripting languages
← Previous message | No next message

> Coupled with this is the phenomenal growth of Web 2.0 elements like RSS
> Feeds which show us that the content, and the ability to manage and control
> it is more important to the user than the presentation.

As John indicates the days of the Browser could be numbered or at least, its
monopoly as the preferred method for users to access content. We already have
such a diverse range of PDA's, and other mobile devices that the ability to effectively
manage this content (going forward) hangs on that content being "structured".

Perhaps as the alternative user agents flourish these scripts will be
expanded to cover additional agents. However, we need to recognize that the
"web of the future" may be engaged on the side of a toaster or microwave
oven or on devices that haven't been invented yet.

Yes indeed. In fact what you say rightly suggests that in order to avoid a technological "Tower of Babel" they must!!

I suppose the thrust of my post is that I am curious about the place that scripting languages have
in the "Brave New Now".

Josh

John E. Brandt wrote:
>
> <<<clip>>>Should you use JS or other non-supported scripting languages for
> core functionality at all?.
>
>
>>JS has a "do-not-touch " status in the world of accessibility that I think
>
> is unwarranted.
>
>
>>This may change in the future when support for scripting languages improves
>
> (if). JS is a potent and powerful client side scripting language and has
> much promise for powerful Web based applications via the DOM. <<clip>>
>
> Joshue makes an interesting point and one that I am struggling with
> regarding a client who recently has asks me to review their site which uses
> a significant amount of Flash objects for the navigation. I also routinely
> review sites with large amounts of JavaScript and then have to engage in the
> same type of questioning the other writers comment on; "is this functional?"
>
>
> My general philosophy in web design is that of "universal design" and I
> generally adhere to a prescription to keep content and presentation
> separate. In addition to the accessibility issues, it is fairly clear that
> the movement to alternative user agents dictates the need to separate the
> two. Coupled with this is the phenomenal growth of Web 2.0 elements like RSS
> Feeds which show us that the content, and the ability to manage and control
> it is more important to the user than the presentation.
>
> BTW, I would revise Joshue's last sentence above to read, "...has much
> promise for powerful BROWSER based applications via the DOM." I have to
> wonder if the days of browsers might not be numbered.
>
> Perhaps as the alternative user agents flourish these scripts will be
> expanded to cover additional agents. However, we need to recognize that the
> "web of the future" may be engaged on the side of a toaster or microwave
> oven or on devices that haven't been invented yet.
>
> Devotees talk about JavaScripting providing functionality to web sites but
> generally these are only for those users who are not blind or visually
> impaired. And they only, for the moment work on traditional web browsers.
>
> So, for now, I vote to use scripts sparingly and continue to evaluate on a
> case-by-case basis. And, I look forward to what others have to say on this
> matter.
>
>
> John E. Brandt
> Augusta, ME USA
> www.jebswebs.com
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
>
>
>