E-mail List Archives
Thread: javascript
Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)
From: Leo Smith
Date: Mon, Aug 27 2001 5:41AM
Subject: javascript
No previous message | Next message →
Thanks to everyone for the input on the Javacript issues....
It seems like I am not the only one who is a little "fuzzy" regarding point "L" of the 508 requirements:
"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"
What exactly does it mean by "identified with functional text" in this context. I have a number of educated guesses as to what it is talking about (at least, I would like to think they are educated), but am not absolutely sure.
Thanks again...
Leo.
From: Reidy Brown
Date: Mon, Aug 27 2001 3:59PM
Subject: Re: javascript
← Previous message | Next message →
Leo,
I ran my Javascript explanation past Doug Wakefield (Accessibility
Specialist at the Access Board, which authored these standards), to make
sure I wasn't misrepresenting 508-- here it is:
"The assumption is that the user will have a reasonably current
browser/assistive technology combination, such as IE 5 and Jaws for Windows
3.7, specifically, one that supports javascript. [This is the biggest
philosophical difference between 508 and WAI.]
In this case, you're assuming that behind-the-scenes Javascript (such as
validation) will work properly. If so, you need only to make sure that
"visual" content is available to all users. For example, a form that
validates for an email address could pop up an alert box saying "Please
enter an email address." Jaws 3.7 can read alert boxes, so this is
acceptable."
I hope this helps clarify the issue.
Reidy Brown
------------------------------------------- Reidy Brown Accessibility Coordinator/Sr. Software Engineer Blackboard, Inc. (202) 463-4860 x236 -------------------------------------------
Blackboard 5.5 Fully Implements Section 508 Accessibility Standards! Learn more:
http://products.blackboard.com/cp/bb5/access/index.cgi
-------------------------------------------
From: Cohen, Lisa A.
Date: Tue, Aug 28 2001 6:57AM
Subject: Re: javascript
← Previous message | Next message →
Reidy,
This is SO helpful... But, can I just ask you to clarify, did Doug Wakefield
make the statement in the second paragraph, followed by your interpretation
in the third paragraph?
Thanks so much,
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Reidy Brown [ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 6:59 PM
To: 'WebAIM forum'
Subject: RE: javascript
Leo,
I ran my Javascript explanation past Doug Wakefield (Accessibility
Specialist at the Access Board, which authored these standards), to make
sure I wasn't misrepresenting 508-- here it is:
"The assumption is that the user will have a reasonably current
browser/assistive technology combination, such as IE 5 and Jaws for Windows
3.7, specifically, one that supports javascript. [This is the biggest
philosophical difference between 508 and WAI.]
In this case, you're assuming that behind-the-scenes Javascript (such as
validation) will work properly. If so, you need only to make sure that
"visual" content is available to all users. For example, a form that
validates for an email address could pop up an alert box saying "Please
enter an email address." Jaws 3.7 can read alert boxes, so this is
acceptable."
I hope this helps clarify the issue.
Reidy Brown
-------------------------------------------
Reidy Brown
Accessibility Coordinator/Sr. Software Engineer
Blackboard, Inc.
(202) 463-4860 x236
-------------------------------------------
Blackboard 5.5 Fully Implements Section 508 Accessibility Standards!
Learn more:
http://products.blackboard.com/cp/bb5/access/index.cgi
-------------------------------------------
[Leo said]
<snip>
point "L" of the 508 requirements:
<snip>
What exactly does it mean by "identified with functional text" in
this context.
<snip>
From: Reidy Brown
Date: Tue, Aug 28 2001 7:18AM
Subject: Re: javascript
← Previous message | Next message →
Lisa,
Clarification: The whole Javascript explanation is mine (one I wrote to the
WAI-IG list several months ago). I wanted to make sure I had it right, so I
sent it to Doug, and he ok'd it, and sent me this additional info:
[Doug]
What problems do screen readers confront with scripting languages?
This standard requires web page authors to ensure that all the information
placed on a screen by a script shall be available in a text form to
assistive technology. Standards for scripts (l) and applets and plug-ins (m)
have similar purposes. 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.
How can web developers comply with this standard?
Because of the problems described above, the standard requires that
functional text be provided, that is, text that, when read, conveys an
accurate message as to what is being displayed by the script. For instance,
if a web page uses a script only to fill the contents of an HTML form with
basic default values, the web page will likely comply with this requirement,
as the text inserted into the form by the script may be readable by a screen
reader. By contrast, if a web page uses a script to create a graphic map of
menu choices when the user moves the pointer over an icon, the web site
designer may be required to incorporate "redundant text links" matching the
menu choices because functional text for each menu choice cannot be rendered
to the assistive technology. Determining whether a web page meets this
requirement may require careful testing by web site designers, particularly
as both assistive technology and the JavaScript standard continue to evolve.
[End Doug's explanation]
Reidy
-------------------------------------------
Reidy Brown
Accessibility Coordinator/Sr. Software Engineer
Blackboard, Inc.
(202) 463-4860 x236
-------------------------------------------
Blackboard 5.5 Fully Implements Section 508 Accessibility Standards!
Learn more:
http://products.blackboard.com/cp/bb5/access/index.cgi
-------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Cohen, Lisa A. [ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:54 AM
To: 'WebAIM forum'
Subject: RE: javascript
Reidy,
This is SO helpful... But, can I just ask you to clarify, did Doug Wakefield
make the statement in the second paragraph, followed by your interpretation
in the third paragraph?
Thanks so much,
Lisa
From: Carol Foster
Date: Thu, Sep 06 2001 7:45PM
Subject: Re: javascript
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello,
I find the approach of assuming JavaScript is turned on and is accessible of
concern both for accessibility and for security. People can turn off
JavaScript, and some people do so, sometimes because they are concerned about
their own privacy. Developers should not count on JavaScript for any kind of
security check, such as passwords, or any kind of message that they want to be
sure the user can access. The best approach seems to me to be to put any checks
on data entry, or messages to the user, in BOTH JavaScript and on the server
side. Even if the latest version of JAWS supports JavaScript, earlier versions
do not. Nor may other browsers or user agents, such as lynx (the version I test
with does not support JavaScript).
As I understand it, Section 508 covers new procurement for the Federal
government, so maybe it makes sense for them to expect that new purchases would
be top of the line, like JAWS 3.7. To be accessible to the widest possible
audience, however, that is a lot to ask. Maybe that accounts for apparent
differences in the Section 508 and WAI philosophies?
Web applications like online shopping and distance learning can be of great
service to many people, including some that don't have a lot of choice in their
user agents, e.g. because they use computers in libraries. Especially for these
types of applications, but probably for everything, I would go along with the
WAI and recommend that these sites work with or without JavaScript, if it were
up to me! From my understanding of the technology, this does not seem to be one
of the hard ones, though it does take a some extra time and effort.
Best wishes,
Carol
Reidy Brown wrote:
> Lisa,
>
> Clarification: The whole Javascript explanation is mine (one I wrote to the
> WAI-IG list several months ago). I wanted to make sure I had it right, so I
> sent it to Doug, and he ok'd it, and sent me this additional info:
>
> [Doug]
> What problems do screen readers confront with scripting languages?
>
> This standard requires web page authors to ensure that all the information
> placed on a screen by a script shall be available in a text form to
> assistive technology. Standards for scripts (l) and applets and plug-ins (m)
> have similar purposes. 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.
>
> How can web developers comply with this standard?
>
> Because of the problems described above, the standard requires that
> functional text be provided, that is, text that, when read, conveys an
> accurate message as to what is being displayed by the script. For instance,
> if a web page uses a script only to fill the contents of an HTML form with
> basic default values, the web page will likely comply with this requirement,
> as the text inserted into the form by the script may be readable by a screen
> reader. By contrast, if a web page uses a script to create a graphic map of
> menu choices when the user moves the pointer over an icon, the web site
> designer may be required to incorporate "redundant text links" matching the
> menu choices because functional text for each menu choice cannot be rendered
> to the assistive technology. Determining whether a web page meets this
> requirement may require careful testing by web site designers, particularly
> as both assistive technology and the JavaScript standard continue to evolve.
> [End Doug's explanation]
>
> Reidy
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Reidy Brown
> Accessibility Coordinator/Sr. Software Engineer
> Blackboard, Inc.
> (202) 463-4860 x236
> -------------------------------------------
> Blackboard 5.5 Fully Implements Section 508 Accessibility Standards!
> Learn more:
> http://products.blackboard.com/cp/bb5/access/index.cgi
> -------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cohen, Lisa A. [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:54 AM
> To: 'WebAIM forum'
> Subject: RE: javascript
>
> Reidy,
> This is SO helpful... But, can I just ask you to clarify, did Doug Wakefield
> make the statement in the second paragraph, followed by your interpretation
> in the third paragraph?
> Thanks so much,
> Lisa
--
Carol Foster, Web Developer
University Information Systems
University of Massachusetts, President's Office
(413) 587-2130
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.umassp.edu/uis/ipg
http://www.umassp.edu/uis/ipg/accessibility
--
From: John Farrie
Date: Thu, Sep 06 2001 8:23PM
Subject: Re: javascript
← Previous message | No next message
> I find the approach of assuming JavaScript is turned on and is accessible
of
> concern both for accessibility and for security. People can turn off
> JavaScript, and some people do so, sometimes because they are concerned
about
> their own privacy. Developers should not count on JavaScript for any kind
of
> security check, such as passwords, or any kind of message that they want
to be
> sure the user can access. <snip>
Stats I've seen on the internet seem to suggest that anywhere between 10-20%
of users don't have JavaScript, or don't have it enabled. Anyone relying on
the presence of JavaScript is risking missing out on this audience. (The
stats might be wrong, but the point is that potentially the proportion is
significant).
Also bear in mind that some organisations might have a security policy which
disables JavaScript for everyone in the organisation.
John Farrie
Accessibility by Design
"Design for accessibility and everyone can benefit"
http://accessibilitybydesign.co.uk