WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: javascript and webapps

for

From: Sam Foster
Date: Mar 22, 2006 7:50AM


>Funnily enough the 508 guidelines seem OK with that from a legal point
>of view, WCAG isn't though (prove me wrong, this is how I read it).
>
>
>
that was my take too .. section 508 is more permissive. Dont know about
the equivalent european / APAC laws though.
WCAG seems a better bet in a global market.

>IBM and Mozilla worked together on an accessible set of DHTML controls
>and it seems quite handy what they have come up with:
>http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/
>
>
>
I'll take a look at those.

>Sitepoint's new JavaScript Anthology has a chapter on JavaScript and
>accessibility that features a lot of test results with different
>screen readers, but personally I don't see that as much more use than
>a DHTML script that was tested in 1999 on Netscape and IE - by making
>your DHTML accessibility dependent on the user agent - regardless of
>screen reader or browser - you make it easily outdated.
>
>
Right, though this attitude is pervasive - and certainly built into the
products at the moment. However, to keep QA remotely manageable, you do
eventually have to define a list of UAs and configurations that your
product supports.

>The problem is not only users of assistive technology, it is about
>availability aswell. What if I work in a high security environment
>where my employer turns off JavaScript or filters it out via a proxy
>by default? What if I am somewhere without internet access on the
>ground and want to use my mobile or satellite phone to reach an app?
>
>
Understood. The response would be that the product comes with some
prerequisites, and simply doesnt support some of these scenarios. When a
client comes along who explicitly requests and wants to pay for them,
then they'll reopen the matter. Of course, at that point if javascript
is built in inextricably, working it out is not at all trivial.

>The latter is always a feasible option as the legal threat might give
>you enough leverage to warrant a lighter non-JavaScript interface
>version.
>
>
>
I believe in some products this is a configure-time option. There is a
fallback, "accessible" version available when you install. This grates
badly with me, and is something I want to fix.

thanks
Sam