WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG 2 and Javascript

for

From: Paul Collins
Date: May 13, 2009 4:30AM

Thanks for your help Steve, much appreciated. I found the comparison chart here: http://wipa.org.au/papers/wcag-migration.htm and the WebAIM Checklist, which has helped make a bit more sense of it also.
http://www.webaim.org/standards/wcag/checklist/

You are absolutely right though; all that time drafting it and it seems to have made things more complicated!

Cheers
Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Steve Green
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:20 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG 2 and Javascript


- Do sites still have to work with all scripts turned off? Or can we use "Accessible" Javascript, like here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/client-side-script.html

- Do all fonts need to be scaleable these days, or can we use image replacement, such as a graphic to replace the text?

Would appreciate your help. If anyone can show me a site that simplifies the WCAG 2, would greatly appreciate it!

--


With regard to JavaScript you are asking two separate questions. JavaScript is an 'accessibility supported technology', so according to WCAG 2.0 you can use JavaScript as long as you do so in a manner that is accessible.

The consensus seems to be that a site does not have to work with JavaScript turned off as long as one of a number of criteria are met e.g. that a user agent is easily and cheaply available that does support JavaScript.

In my view this is entirely unsatisfactory but it's what WCAG 2.0 says.
Basically it's telling users to get a new user agent if the one they have doesn't support JavaScript. Never mind that they may not know how to or may not have the necessary permissions to do so.

With regard to scalable fonts, you cannot use image replacement. Although you could scale the image proportionally to the text size (yuck), the text and background colours cannot be changed according to the user's preference.
I would also regard sIFR as being non-compliant for the same reason, although it is less bad than image replacement because the quality does not degrade when it is scaled.

A simplified version of WCAG 2.0? No chance. In fact it's going to get more complicated because the WAI are hoping that people will continuously add to the already vast quantity of documentation. In particular they would like to see technology-specific interpretations of the technology-independent success criteria. Rather like WCAG 1.0. Remind me what was the point of WCAG 2.0?

Steve Green
Director
Test Partners Ltd