E-mail List Archives
Thread: Is noscript really needed to comply with 508>
Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)
From: Donald Evans
Date: Fri, Jul 22 2011 7:48AM
Subject: Is noscript really needed to comply with 508>
No previous message | Next message →
I have a customer who's site is heavily dependent on JavaScript and must
meet Section 508. Section 508 1194.22 Para-L is usually interpreted to
require a noscript option for each script that produces functional text.
This will most likely require the customer to create a separate text only
version.
Do you think a separate site is necessary? I don't believe WCAG 2 requires
a noscript. Only that the functional text be readable by assistive
technology. In this case the site is readable by AT. I wonder what a VPAT
would look like for Para-L if no-script is not implemented.
--
Donald F. Evans,
Making Websites Accessible
Senior Accessibility Architect
Deque Systems
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Download FireEyes Free: http://www.deque.com/products/worldspace-fireeyes
<http://www.deque.com>;
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Fri, Jul 22 2011 8:06AM
Subject: Re: Is noscript really needed to comply with 508>
← Previous message | Next message →
I have a customer who's site is heavily dependent on JavaScript and must meet Section 508. Section 508 1194.22 Para-L is usually interpreted to require a noscript option for each script that produces functional text.
I've never understood it to mean that. It means that scripts need to create functional text, not that you need to provide a fallback to scripts.
The 1194.22(l) VPAT would possibly say (if true): This web site utilizes scripting for some interface elements and textual information. In all cases textual information and information about the interface elements is available to assistive technologies as functional text.
You can get as specific as you feel you need to about the details of course. The main thing is making sure it actually works.
AWK
From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Jul 22 2011 8:12AM
Subject: Re: Is noscript really needed to comply with 508>
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Donald Evans < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Section 508 1194.22 Para-L is usually interpreted to
> require a noscript option for each script that produces functional text.
This is not at all our interpretation
(http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist#standardl). Noscript is not
a suitable alternative to inaccessible content. Instead, it is an
alternative for when scripting is disabled. Because nearly all users,
including those with disabilities, have JavaScript enabled (see
http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript), noscript
does almost nothing for accessibility.
This guideline should be properly interpreted as "If you use
JavaScript, the JavaScript stuff must be accessible."
Additionally, unless it's been fixed recently, JAWS does not support
or read noscript content anyway, even if scripting is disabled.
Using progressive enhancement is nearly always a better approach, but
again, this has little to do with accessibility and only is applicable
with scripting is disabled.
> This will most likely require the customer to create a separate text only
> version.
Doing so would very likely be a direct violation of Section 508 (k) -
http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist#standardk Unless the
scripted content cannot be made accessible in any way (very unlikely),
a text-only version is not a suitable alternative.
> I don't believe WCAG 2 requires a noscript.
Correct. WCAG takes the same approach as Section 508 - it's OK to use
and even require scripting, but the scripted content must be
accessible.
Jared
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Fri, Jul 22 2011 12:15PM
Subject: Re: Is noscript really needed to comply with 508>
← Previous message | Next message →
NoScript is not absolutely required.
Ensure you provide textual information to operate the functionality and
you are fine.
Andrew has this correct.
From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Fri, Jul 22 2011 2:54PM
Subject: Re: Is noscript really needed to comply with 508>
← Previous message | No next message
Right I fully concur with Andrew and Jared. NOSCRIPT kicks in when
scripting is disabled or not supported and that hardly makes scripted
content accessible. Scripted content can be made accessible and is
supported by browsers / AT. When JS is used to convey state of menu
for instance (expanded / collapsed) that is accessible scripting.
Nothing to do with NOSCRIPT. If ARIA states are toggled by JS to
reflect the state that too is accessible stuff and does not require JS
to be turned off.
Sailesh Panchang
On 7/22/11, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Donald Evans < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>> Section 508 1194.22 Para-L is usually interpreted to
>> require a noscript option for each script that produces functional text.
>
> This is not at all our interpretation
> (http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist#standardl). Noscript is not
> a suitable alternative to inaccessible content. Instead, it is an
> alternative for when scripting is disabled. Because nearly all users,
> including those with disabilities, have JavaScript enabled (see
> http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript), noscript
> does almost nothing for accessibility.
>
> This guideline should be properly interpreted as "If you use
> JavaScript, the JavaScript stuff must be accessible."
>
> Additionally, unless it's been fixed recently, JAWS does not support
> or read noscript content anyway, even if scripting is disabled.
>
> Using progressive enhancement is nearly always a better approach, but
> again, this has little to do with accessibility and only is applicable
> with scripting is disabled.
>
>> This will most likely require the customer to create a separate text only
>> version.
>
> Doing so would very likely be a direct violation of Section 508 (k) -
> http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist#standardk Unless the
> scripted content cannot be made accessible in any way (very unlikely),
> a text-only version is not a suitable alternative.
>
>> I don't believe WCAG 2 requires a noscript.
>
> Correct. WCAG takes the same approach as Section 508 - it's OK to use
> and even require scripting, but the scripted content must be
> accessible.
>
> Jared
>