508 compliance and Javascript

[wardy]

Hi all, looking for a little bit of help.....I'm currently in the
process of trying to understand the impact of the 508 guidelines on a
web site that I am involved with, and I have a question surrounding the
use of Javascript. The site currently relies on Javascript for
navigating from page to page - I cannot find anything in the 508
guidelines like the 6.3 WAI checkpoint for AA compliance:

"Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not
possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible
page".

Does this restriction not exist for 508 compliance? Can a site be
considered 508 compliant if it relies on Javascript being enabled?

Thanks

[Harlan Messinger]

wardy wrote:

Hi all, looking for a little bit of help.....I'm currently in the
process of trying to understand the impact of the 508 guidelines on a
web site that I am involved with, and I have a question surrounding the
use of Javascript. The site currently relies on Javascript for
navigating from page to page - I cannot find anything in the 508
guidelines like the 6.3 WAI checkpoint for AA compliance:

"Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not
possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible
page".

Does this restriction not exist for 508 compliance? Can a site be
considered 508 compliant if it relies on Javascript being enabled?

Section 508 isn't very long--surely you saw paragraph 1194.22(l):

(l) 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.

Commentary from the Access Board is at
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/g...194.22.htm#(l).

I've had a Javascript-based drop-down menu, one that expands on clicking
or keyboard activation rather than mouseovers, pass muster from a
Federal agency 508 review team, where the items on each pop-up menu were
positioned right after the link that opened the menu and were
traversible via the tab key when visible, but were left out of the tab
sequence when invisible. (Accomplished using the CSS display attribute.)

[wardy]

Hi Harlan...thanks for the response. I absolutely saw that paragraph,
but there is nothing specifically there that says that a site must
function with Javascript disabled. It talks about "utilize scripting
languages to display content, or to create interface elements", but
this does not imply that the site must work without Javascript. It is
not Javascript that is rendering the controls, but it is Javascript
that is handling clicks on hyperlinks. That is where the grey area
comes in and why I was asking can a site be 508 compliant if it doesn't
work with Javascript disabled

Thanks again

[Nick Kew]

wardy wrote:

Does this restriction not exist for 508 compliance? Can a site be
considered 508 compliant if it relies on Javascript being enabled?

Section 508 has some detailed javascript guidelines, regarding events
that can ror can't be used, or those that can be used with certain
(well-specified) provisos.

Section 508's guidelines are quite a lot easier to test
programmaticall y than WCAG. See http://valet.webthing.com/access/

--
Nick Kew

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "wardy" <wa*******@gmai l.com>
writing in news:11******** **************@ u72g2000cwu.goo glegroups.com:

Hi Harlan...thanks for the response. I absolutely saw that paragraph,
but there is nothing specifically there that says that a site must
function with Javascript disabled. It talks about "utilize scripting
languages to display content, or to create interface elements", but
this does not imply that the site must work without Javascript. It is
not Javascript that is rendering the controls, but it is Javascript
that is handling clicks on hyperlinks. That is where the grey area
comes in and why I was asking can a site be 508 compliant if it doesn't
work with Javascript disabled

Thanks again

If clicking on a link still goes to the link with javascript disabled, then
you're good to go. If not, you're not.

Best thing to do is to turn javascript off and navigate around the site.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[wardy]

Hi all....thanks for the responses. If I turn Javascript off, then the
site cannot be navigated as it relies on Javascript functionality to
perform functions that allow the navigation to occur. However, the 508
guidelines do not explicitly state that a site must be functional with
Javascript disabled, or at least, I cannot find this statement in the
guidelines. It talks about the use of the OnClick event, which is what
is used by the site on hyperlinks - the 508 guidelines specify:

onClick - The onClick event handler is triggered when the user
clicks once on a particular item. It is commonly used on links and
button elements and, used in connectio with these elements, it works
well with screen readers. If clicking on the element associated with
the onClick event handler triggers a function or performs some other
action, developers should ensure that the context makes that fact clear
to all users. Do not use the onClick event handlers for form elements
that include several options (e.g. select lists, radio buttons,
checkboxes) unless absolutely necessary.

We also use Javascript URL's, which are mentioned in the guidelines as
follows:

Web developers working with JavaScript frequently use so-called
JavaScript URL's as an easy way to invoke JavaScript functions.
Typically, this technique is used as part of <a> anchor links. For
instance, the following link invokes a JavaScript function called
myFunction:

<a href="javascrip t:myFunction(); ">Start myFunction</a>

This technique does not cause accessibility problems for assistive
technology

According to these statements, the use of onClick and Javascript URL's
is fine, and if it triggers a function (which ours does), as long as we
indicate that it does so, then there shouldn't be an issue. Am I
interpreting this correctly? (Unfortunately the validation tools for
this area only bring back warnings and they are manual checks required,
thus my problem interpreting what constitutes non-compliance).

Thanks again

[VK]

wardy wrote:

Hi all, looking for a little bit of help.....I'm currently in the
process of trying to understand the impact of the 508 guidelines on a
web site that I am involved with, and I have a question surrounding the
use of Javascript. The site currently relies on Javascript for
navigating from page to page - I cannot find anything in the 508
guidelines like the 6.3 WAI checkpoint for AA compliance:

"Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not
possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible
page".

Does this restriction not exist for 508 compliance? Can a site be
considered 508 compliant if it relies on Javascript being enabled?

Hi, if you are interested in the US situation:

In the US the industry of slippers exists for a long time and there is
a set of reasonable protection measures for businesses against
citizens.
Note: I picked up the term "slippers" from the grocery business. There
it refers to people seeking an opportunity to fail (slip) on floor in
some rich grocery store like Safeway or Wal-Mart to get a good
compensation for a light injury. On a wide run "slipper" refer to any
person seeking an opportunity to get victimized / injured by some rich
business: slip on floor, pour hot coffee on yourself, to be unable to
use public WC on a wheelchair etc.
There is a good set up between certain people with disabilities and
certain lawyers, continuously seeking for new victims.
By now businesses and court system set a rather effective protection
against slippers, where the key line is the "default accessibility
violation or default usage danger". Say in big grocery stores against
of slippers they now have sweepers: these are appointed employees
sweeping the floor on an hourly basis and marking it in a journal. Even
if someone fails - which is always possible - the store has a proof
that all default measures to prevent that have been taken.
For the Web this means that, in order to protect themselves against
web-slippers, a corporate site *by default* has to conform to ADA.
Disabling JavaScript/JScript (which is on by default) is an expressive
action made by visitor. If it decreases site's accessibility, it is
caused by expressive actions of your visitors, and slippers are out of
luck. In this concern you better fully concentrate on ADA conformance
in the default environment. The last big slippers' success was with a
perfectly valid HTML Transitional page with JavaScript enabled. For
details see:
<http://www.dralegal.or g/cases/private_busines s/nfb_v_target.ph p>
That costed to Target good money paid under the table. And they got it
on such simple and HTML-valid thing as *image map*.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised to see one day W3C US Branch being
suited by slippers for promoting non-ADA conformant pages over
Validator. :-) It sounds ugly and crazy enough to become true one day.
:-)

[VK]

.... and never ever disregard <noscript> ... </noscript> tag.

"Caution! This content is extremely hot!" - a really short message, but
now anyone is welcome to pour the entire coffee cup right on his virtu
:-)

"Sorry, but the content of this page is not accessible if client-side
script support is disabled" - and go sue me now. (cannot be treated as
disability discrimination as the message is equal for any visitor).

[Chris Morris]

"VK" <sc**********@y ahoo.com> writes:

For the Web this means that, in order to protect themselves against
web-slippers, a corporate site *by default* has to conform to ADA.
Disabling JavaScript/JScript (which is on by default)
On by default in _some_ browsers. Off by default in others (corporate
security policies on locked-down desktops, for example, may mean that
when the PC arrives at your desk, it has Javascript disabled),
non-existent in many more.
is an expressive action made by visitor. If it decreases site's
accessibility, it is caused by expressive actions of your visitors,
So, what if none of the browsers on my computer support Javascript?
luck. In this concern you better fully concentrate on ADA conformance
in the default environment. The last big slippers' success was with a
perfectly valid HTML Transitional page
Given that one of the claims in the article is "missing alt text", the
page could not have been valid.
with JavaScript enabled. For details see:
<http://www.dralegal.or g/cases/private_busines s/nfb_v_target.ph p>
I presume the "expressive action made by the visitor" in this case you
define as "using a browser that lets them browse the web at all"? Or
can you think of a way that, in the default case, someone who can't
see will be able to use a mouse to navigate a site.
That costed to Target good money paid under the table. And they got it
on such simple and HTML-valid thing as *image map*.

According to the article, which you seem to have linked to without
reading, it was for missing alt text (not valid nor accessible) and
forcing the use of a mouse (not accessible), and for inaccessible
image maps (not for image maps, for *inaccessible* ones).

Validity helps accessibility but does not guarantee it. Anyone who
claims otherwise has seriously misunderstood both validity and
accessibility. In this case the site was neither, of course.

There are unreasonable adjustments to make to browser
choice+configur ation that would make an accessibility argument based
on a site not being viewable in those settings fair.
- setting the same text and background colour as your browser defaults
- having a user stylesheet of "* { display: none !important }"
- using the original line mode browser, IE v1, or another browser of that era

Disabling Javascript - especially as some browsers don't have the
option to enable it - does not count.

--
Chris

[Chris Morris]

"VK" <sc**********@y ahoo.com> writes:

"Sorry, but the content of this page is not accessible if client-side
script support is disabled" - and go sue me now. (cannot be treated as
disability discrimination as the message is equal for any visitor).
"VK" didn't write, but could have under the same logic: "Sorry, this building is not accessible if staircase support is
disabled." - and go sue me now. (cannot be treated as disability
discrimination as the message is equal for any visitor)

Both statements are equally valid.

--
Chris