WCAG Samurai Errata publish (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Accessibility



Message

d a v e -> WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/10/2007 4:13:55)

http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200706/wcag_samurai_errata_published/



womble -> RE: WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/10/2007 5:01:45)

quote:

The accesskey and tabindex attributes are banned.

Yay!

/does a happydance round the thread [sm=boogie.gif]

Now that would be good!

Strictly speaking, all of my sites would fail WCAG as I refuse to use accesskeys. on the grounds that practically all accesskey combinations clash with some sort of assistive software. I got some firsthand experience of this recently when I experimented with a page putting accesskeys on then seeing what happened when I tried it with with LunarPlus, my combined screen magnifier/screen reader. Rather predicatably, alsorts of strange things started happening.

quote:

Not only must you use valid HTML in your documents, you must use valid and semantic HTML.

Good one too. Too often accessibility's claimed without any attention to the semantics of the HTML.



d a v e -> RE: WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/10/2007 5:45:45)

off the top of my head doesn't the doesn't the WCAG 2.0. only say 'consider the use of' tab indexes and access keys?? though i guess if you didn't know better you would go ahead and use them without any knowledge of their associated problems ;)

(edit)
anyway this condensed version is good for people like me that are still getting to grips with it all!



womble -> RE: WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/10/2007 6:15:09)

Looking at the quick reference for WCAG 2.0, it looks like they've taken some of the rigidity out from WCAG 1.0

quote:

Avoiding use of common user-agent keyboard commands for other purposes (future link)

Better than WCAG 1.0, but it still doesn't address the problem that there's practically no keyboard commands that aren't used by default by some browser/assistive browser or other. Overall 2.0 looks to be a lot more general and less prescriptive, which is decidely a Good Thing in many ways, though I can see it causing problems. Who, for example, decides what is a common user-agent keyboard command? It's going to be a fine balancing act between being too prescriptive and too woolly.

I like the Samurai version better.



jaybee -> RE: WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/10/2007 7:16:19)

quote:

* Tables for layout are banned.
* Frames are banned.
* The noscript element is banned.
* Valid markup is required.
* Using correct semantics is required.
* The accesskey and tabindex attributes are banned.
Yay to all except errr Noscript? I'm a bit lost here. What does one use instead?



womble -> RE: WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/10/2007 8:02:55)

I suspect that it's referring to guideline 6 in the Samurai version:

quote:

Guideline 6. Ensure that pages featuring new technologies transform gracefully

Do not provide alternative presentations or alternate pages (Checkpoint 6.5). Make the original; page accessible.

...basically, if it's not accessible don't use it. I suppose that applies mainly to javascript.

I've never been a huge js fan (probably cos I'm rubbish at writing it [:D]), and I moved away from using js for a lot of things to PHP. Of course there the problem is that apart from extra calls to the server, some things do need js. I suppose it's like with the JS Lightbox - needs js to function as the pretty slideshow, but you can still get the pictures if js isn't on, but not the pretty version.

I can see where they're coming from on that one, but there are times when noscript can be useful, though I'm wondering if js support detection with a redirect if it's not supported may be better, though again that's not going to suit all circumstances.

*sigh*



Tailslide -> RE: WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/11/2007 2:39:11)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

quote:

* Tables for layout are banned.
* Frames are banned.
* The noscript element is banned.
* Valid markup is required.
* Using correct semantics is required.
* The accesskey and tabindex attributes are banned.
Yay to all except errr Noscript? I'm a bit lost here. What does one use instead?



You could use JS to hide the non-JS alternative.



jaybee -> RE: WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/11/2007 8:44:16)

Yes true but then f you don't have js turned on then the non js alternative doesn't show up so it's all a bit pointless.

You're going to like this, I was invited to join the W3C working group. After some considerable thought I accepted. They sent me all the stuff. I can't log in. [&o]



Tailslide -> RE: WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/11/2007 10:57:06)

No what I mean is that you use JS to add a CSS rule that hides the non-JS alternative so with JS off you get the stuff.



jaybee -> RE: WCAG Samurai Errata publish (6/12/2007 6:47:18)

Ahhhh OK.

I still can't log in, maybe that's why they keep publishing stupid stuff. Everyone who could complain and get it changed can't log in to critique. [&:]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875