Java script is not inherently inaccessible.  Like so many things, it is
what the designer does with it.  Sometimes the java script interface (in
the browser) is made up of common buttons and edit boxes easily identified
by JFW.  I am not suggesting everyone turn on java script and it may be
that the majority of what is done in java script is inaccessible.  I just
want to point out that java script can be used to create useful and
accessible features in web pages.

my two cents

James

James Bailey
Adaptive Technology Access Adviser, University of Oregon
Office: 541-346-1076
Adaptive Lab: 541-346-1927
[log in to unmask]
http://adaptive-tech.uoregon.edu

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, David Poehlman wrote:

> paul, one thing you keep over looking is that it is possible to serve
> pages according to user preference as long as the basics are in the
> code.  a user need never see an "ugly" page via their own choosing while
> "ugly" can be served if that is what the user wants.  There is at least
> one service that is or will be shortly available that you can go to and
> bring up a site through that is free but as I said, the code still needs
> to be there.  You asked about java script.  the noscript tag has many
> uses other than to tell someone which it does most often that they are
> using a non java capable browser or some such rubbish so get a grip and
> upgrade.  The cost of computers plays a large role in what you seek.
> Since accessibility and heck even the web is a moving target, I'd hate
> to embark on a huge software development task which could take upwards
> of 5 years that would "repair" for the user all that bad design out
> there and than try to distribute it and find out that things have moved
> on.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Chapin" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 8:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Web Access; When the Rubber Meets the Road
>
>
> > Seems like you're saying that visual effects are more important than
> > the information being communicated, and that you want to have visually
> > attractive pages at the expense of those pages being accessible to
> > all.
> >
> Not quite what I'm saying. Let's ignore the fact that better visual
> presentation makes a page nicer to look at for the sighted reader, or
> that
> many graphic designers use design to emphasize content, or that sighted
> users use visual clues to select and process information on a page
> faster.
> There are practical effects that any graphic designer is well aware.
>
> For example, large blocks of text are inherently unpleasant and
> difficult to
> read.  Wide blocks are especially difficult.  The simple graphic
> solution is
> to divide the page into columns so individual lines are of limited
> width.
> This significantly improves the readability of the text to the sighted
> user
> and is why newspapers and magazines have been using columns for decades.
> But the accessibility of column text like this is highly problematic
> with
> low end software.
>
> I'm fully willing to argue that sighted users may have to give up some
> of
> the whiz-bang visuals in order to make pages accessible.  While at this
> point this group probably considers me a troglodyte, around here I'm
> thought
> of as that annoying person who keeps pointing out accessibility
> problems.
> What I am arguing is that we should not make the process of creating
> accessible resources any harder than necessary, or require non-disabled
> users to give up anything unless it's really necessary. The goal here is
> equal access to information by making access easier for the disabled,
> not by
> making it harder for the non-disabled.
>
> > I also hear you complaining about people who refuse to upgrade their
> > software, making accessibility by non graphical and non-java browsers
> > necessary.  You seem to be saying that people refuse to upgrade their
> > software as opposed to are not able to upgrade their software.
> >
> I am saying that.  Remember that this whole thread was based on the
> premise
> that good software would be made available at little or not cost.  The
> cost
> logically should be borne by the web sites since, by making it easier to
> create accessible pages, they benefit directly from the upgrades.
> Practically, it would probably have to come out of either the
> government,
> universities or the open source movement.
>
> > Paul, people do not upgrade mainly because of the cost factor.  Also,
> > it is difficult to learn new software, and people feel comfortable
> > with what they have.
>
> I don't consider that a reasonable objection.  Most people feel
> comfortable
> creating inaccessible web pages.  Would you are argue that they should
> continue to do so? I think it behooves both sides to put some effort
> into
> this.
>
> Laura raises some interesting questions. One of the most important,
> which I
> mentioned in the original post, is whether, given the variety of
> disabilities that we are dealing with, it is possible to create a
> software
> package or packages that can take web pages involving some of the more
> sophisticated features available to designers and make them accessible
> to
> all possible users. This is a critical question since even if there is a
> software solution that works with most of the disabled, it wouldn't be
> acceptable if it resulted in web pages that omitted others. The
> principle of
> the lowest common denominator still applies; the goal is to raise the
> denominator. I don't feel qualified to answer that question. Let's take
> JavaScript for an example.  Can anybody come up with a case where a
> sufficiently intelligent piece of software would not be able to deal
> with a
> JavaScript and convert it into something useful?
>
> And a final comment on PDAs and handhelds.  As you may guess, I'm not a
> fan.
> They have some uses, but until the price gets to something below fifty
> dollars (and the 800 dollar price was from the article, not me) I'll
> stick
> with my pocket pad and pen.  The interesting question is whether most
> web
> pages are really appropriate for minimal displays.  Ironically, the
> visually
> impaired are probably in a better position for dealing with PDAs that
> the
> sighted since they're use to processing web pages linearly. Personally,
> I
> wouldn't go to most web pages if I had to run the output through a PDA
> simply because the data flow is too slow.  If I want movie times, it
> might
> make sense.  If I'm checking out college web site to see if I want to go
> there, no.
>
> ------
> Paul Chapin
> Curricular Computing Specialist
> Amherst College
> 413 542-2144
>