Comments on: Better Connected, Better Results: Online payments

By: Bim

Bim — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:32:03 +0000

I’m so sorry it’s taken so long for me to get back to you all on your comments. We’ve been hard at this year’s Better Connected assessments for the last three months and it’s left little time for anything else.

What Patrick and Jack say is absolutely right, there are JavaScript events that can be used by everyone, unless client-side scripting is disabled, and I should have been more precise in my phrasing.

When I said that a site “uses JavaScript therefore is inaccessible”, I meant of course within the context of WCAG 1.0, as the Better Connected assessments only check compliance to the current guidelines. It would have been better if I’d said “uses JavaScript is therefore bound to fail the single A assessment of compliance to current guidelines.

Having said that, can I just pick up on Jack’s comment, “there is a key difference between calling a site inaccessible when a disabled user is unable to use it, and calling it inaccessible when for whatever reason javascript has been disabled”.

At the highest level this is true, but what about users whose disability makes it very difficult for them to use sites where problematic scripts are in use? Or users who feel the need to have high security settings, (which disables JavaScript)? At present they should be able to use any part of a site calling itself accessible, because the client-side script will be backed up with a server-side alternative.

In the future, will these people, (who include those with dyslexia and other distractibility conditions, as well as many access tech users), have to delve into the bowels of their browsers to enable/disable JavaScript, according to the site’s content?

By: KLewis

KLewis — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:37:18 +0000

Quote: “it could make it more difficult for some people to pay bills.”
I’m afraid “some people” is not enough of a business case to persuade the bill payers and I doubt it’s enough for the providers either.

“You’ve got some simple to figures to show that a problem might exist but can you provide some to show that it really does? Then I’ll provide the cash for the change” says Mr Hard-Nosed-Budget-Holder.

By: Iain Lackie

Iain Lackie — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:50:28 +0000

Why doesn’t RNIB go for a reall accessibility issue. I refer to the ubiquitous CAPTCHA. They may not appear on local authority websites but they are a true barrier to people who have no sight. There is often nothing that can be done to get past them. That’s real inaccessibility for you!.

By: JackP

JackP — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:39:23 +0000

I’ve got to agree with Patrick here: from what I understand, some pieces of javascript are extremely well supported by assistive technology (the javascript postback, for example).

A site using this relies on javascript, but is accessible to disabled users, although it is in breach of WCAG 1.0.

I’m all in favour of universality (indeed I include this in my definition of accessibility) but I recognise that there is a key difference between calling a site inaccessible when a disabled user is unable to use it, and calling it inaccessible when for whatever reason javascript has been disabled.

I’ve got to admit I’m a little disappointed to hear the “uses javascript therefore is inaccessible” line being trotted out from the RNIB and perpetuating the old stereotype. This may be the case if the javascript has not been tested with assistive technologies, but isn’t necessarily the case at all.

By: Darren Taylor

Darren Taylor — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:53:26 +0000

More a question than a comment but are local councils exempt from using the Government Gateway?

By: patrick h. lauke

patrick h. lauke — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:08:26 +0000

with a view toward WCAG 2.0’s “accessibility-supported technologies” idea, would you say though that javascript - if done properly - is accessibility-supported? in other words, is reliance on javascript an accessibility barrier, or a universal access barrier? maybe that’s splitting hairs, for some…but if we look at accessibility in terms of “can users with disabilities understand/use/operate it”, is a well constructed, accessible piece of javascript really a no-go?