John,
I'd say that it isn't the WAO guidelines that lock people into certain
technologies, it is the web itself that does it. So long as JavaScript
is used in web pages to provide functionality, an accessible browser has
to have some ability to interpret or render the action of the
JavaScript.
The guidelines don't say that an accessible browser must use JavaScript
to interpret or render a page, they say that the browser must provide
access to changes produced by a JavaScript.
Denis Anson, MS, OTR
Computer Access Specialist
College Misericordia
301 Lake St.
Dallas, PA 18612
email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 570-674-6413
> -----Original Message-----
> From: * EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Nissen
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 7:23 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Javascript and Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm following up on the thread:
> Re: Fw: Call for review: Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
> but I'm starting a new thread, to expore the way that the
accessibility
> guidelines can allow features that lock people into particular
> technology. I believe that JavaScript is such a feature.
>
> There was a discussion some time ago about JavaScript, and Jim
Thatcher,
> author of HPR (Home Page Reader) said that it could handle JavaScript.
> I remember wondering how HPR does it, but have since learned that
> HPR sits inside Internet Explorer, so presumably it uses IE's
Javascript
> capability. For access technology not based on a conventional
browser,
> JavaScript is extremely problematical. By allowing it in the
guidelines,
> WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative) is locking people into using a
certain
> type of access technology, based on proprietory products. On the
other
> hand, if people want to use a direct text reading approach, via Lynx
> or using WordAloud for example, they cannot access sites that rely
> on JavaScript to work. The direct reading approach is generally
> much simpler for people with a visual impairment, as they are not
> "seeing through a glass darkly", i.e. they don't have to learn how
> to use a graphically-oriented browser, and at the same time how to
> use a screen reader that interprets the image that the browser has
> thrown up on the screen. You can see how simple the direct reading
> approach can be by trying a free evaluation copy of WordAloud,
> www.wordaloud.co.uk. The product is currently being offered at
> $44.95 for personal use. BTW, it competes with screen magnifier as
well
> as screen readers, and uses a word-at-a-time display for rapid
reading.
> And because it's written in Java, it's not tied to Windows.
> But there's no way it could handle JavaScript (which has nothing to
> do with Java). Hence my concern about allowing JavaScript in the
> accessibility guidelines. JavaScript locks out this new,
user-friendly
> and affordable technology.
>
> Cheers from Chiswick,
>
> John
> --
> In message <[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >I have no datta on your first question. I will be free form though
and
> >answer this way. when testing for accessibility via the web content
> >accessibility guidelines, it is important to take all functional
> >limitations into consideration...
>
> [snip]
>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Rosemary Ernst" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:23 AM
> >>Subject: Re: Fw: Call for review: Evaluating Web Sites for
Accessibility
> >>
> >>This WAI document suggests the use of IBM's Home Page Reader to as a
> >>voice browser to use for testing. Has anyone used this product?
> >>How does it compare to JAWS or Window Eyes?
> >>
> >>Rosemary Ernst
> >>Web Developer
>
> --
> Access the word, access the world! -- Try our WordAloud software!!
>
> John Nissen, Cloudworld Ltd., Chiswick, London, UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 845 458 3944 (local rate in the UK)
> Fax: +44 (0) 20 8742 8715
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Web: http://www.cloudworld.co.uk and http://www.wordaloud.co.uk
|
