WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG 2 and Javascript

for

From: Christophe Strobbe
Date: May 13, 2009 4:50AM

At 12:19 13/05/2009, Steve Green wrote:

>- 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.

It's not quite that simple.
1. Accessibility support for a technology is not a black-and-white
question, but one with many shades of grey.
Usually, certain features of a technology are not supported, but if
you don't rely on them, that is not a problem.
What counts is the features and techniques you use: it's these
features and techniques that need to be accessibility supported, even
if not ALL of the technology is accessibility supported.
2. There is another reason why you can simply say: "Technology X is
accessibility supported", namely that is sometimes depends on the
language of the content. If you develop content in English, you need
to look at support of user agents and AT that support English, but if
you develop content in Japanese, you'll need to look at support of
user agents and AT that support. So the set of accessibility
supported (uses of) technologies may vary depending on the language
of your content.


>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.

I disagree: it's telling developers to avoid (uses of) technologies
that are not accessibility supported.


>(...)
>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?

The *criteria* are technology-agnostic, but that makes them harder to
use by developers. That why we need technology-specific *techniques*
and other documentation. Having this technology-specific techniques
does not make the criteria technology-dependent.

Best regards,

Christophe


>Steve Green
>Director
>Test Partners Ltd


--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
"Better products and services through end-user empowerment"
http://www.usem-net.eu/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but
I haven't.