At 01:54 PM 7/5/2006, John W. Baxter wrote:
>> Does the industry (I almost wrote "do we") know how big a problem
>> this is in practice? That is, what fraction of users of screen
>> readers and other assistive stuff routinely run with JavaScript
>> active?
>>
>> Since the assertion here is "scree
Thank you for the correction, David.
--John
On 7/5/06 5:07 PM, "David Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That assertion is not true, to my knowledge -- and I am a screen reader user.
> Because it does work with a lot of things, and does offer improved
> functionality, it is rare to turn Jav
--On Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:30 AM +0200 emf wrote:
> I had indicated in a
> previous post that the mailman interface I am building
> will be fully
> functional without javascript/css;
Excellent, Ethan. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for all of your hard work.
All the Best,
Laura
_
That assertion is not true, to my knowledge -- and I am a screen reader user.
Because it does work with a lot of things, and does offer improved
functionality, it is rare to turn Javascript off.
David Andrews
At 01:54 PM 7/5/2006, John W. Baxter wrote:
>On 7/5/06 11:26 AM, "emf" <[EMAIL PROTEC
>
>I believe that the W3C standards require that Javascript and other components
>fail gracefully, so the point could be made, for things link Lynx and Links
>that a graceful degrade would also take care of us screen reader users.
>Anything specific you write for us, while appreciated, is also
>
>There is MSAA, Microsoft Active Accessibility, and a replacement with Vista, I
>believe, but don't remember what it is called. Don't know if they can be used
>by style sheets, but inquiry to [EMAIL PROTECTED] might be in order.
>
>Dave
>
>At 12:45 PM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>>Gentlebeings,
>>
>
--On Wednesday, July 5, 2006 8:54 PM +0200 emf wrote:
> Are you suggesting I provide *no* link for the
> screen-reader-with-javascript client and let them at some point
> figure out that they're not seeing what's going on and thus turn off
> javascript?
>
> That seems like a worse solution.
I'm
On 7/5/06 11:26 AM, "emf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem I face is not when JavaScript is not active, the problem is
> when JavaScript *is* active *and* behaves correctly - i.e. performs the
> dom modification I've told it to - but the browser/screen reader doesn't
> bother to tell the u
Laura Carlson wrote:
> Heavyweight DOM scripting, often results in inaccessible content,
The main point I'm driving at is *any* dom manipulation - heavy, light,
fat-free, or decaf - appears to be invisible to the screen reading user
unless I do it "downstream" of the focused text. I'm talking
emf wrote:
> Gentlebeings,
>
> I have read a depressing and recent article suggesting that DOM
> manipulations are invisible to most screen readers [1]. There are some
> workarounds suggested in [2], but for the most part it looks like
> dangerous territory.
Silly me, I didn't include the link
--On Tuesday, July 4, 2006 9:44 PM +0200 emf wrote:
> I am determined to provide some JavaScript in the 'standard'
> interface, as it will make for enhanced ease-of-use for those sighted
> people using a modern browser.
Hi Ethan,
It says in 6.3 of WCAG 1.0 to "Ensure that pages are usable when
Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> I will do this for browsers not employing JavaScript. Screen readers
>> employ JavaScript and provide no indication what they do/do not
>> provide
>> feedback to the user for.
>
> Will this also work for browsers with JS enabled per-page, a la the
> Firefox NoScript extensio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 4, 2006, at 2:06 PM, emf wrote:
> Brad Knowles wrote:
>
>> Speaking only for myself, this is not the kind of approach I'd
>> like to see
>> used. I'd prefer to see the web application auto-detect that
>> JavaScript
>> is not available, and
emf wrote:
>> Likewise, it should auto-detect that there is a
>> screen reader being used, and present the appropriate screen reader
>> compatible interface.
>
> This is an admirable goal. One "screen reader" in semi-common use is IE
> 6 via Jaws; another one is Safari with OS X reading turned o
Brad Knowles wrote:
> Speaking only for myself, this is not the kind of approach I'd like to see
> used. I'd prefer to see the web application auto-detect that JavaScript
> is not available, and therefore to automatically present the appropriate
> non-JavaScript interface.
I will do this for br
Ethan wrote:
> Note that this would be in *addition* to the ability to get a JS-free
> version of the interface by using a different URL prefix for any user
> agent that doesn't want the JS action.
Speaking only for myself, this is not the kind of approach I'd like to see
used. I'd prefer to see
Gentlebeings,
I have read a depressing and recent article suggesting that DOM
manipulations are invisible to most screen readers [1]. There are some
workarounds suggested in [2], but for the most part it looks like
dangerous territory.
What's worse, there seems to be no way to detect screen re
17 matches
Mail list logo
