Edit comment LC-2891 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Previous: LC-2886 Next: LC-2903

Comment LC-2891: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl> on behalf of Accessibility Foundation; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
This technique is a clear â€œDonâ€™t do Xâ€, in this case document.write and innerHTML. Which would make it a failure technique, except that using document.write / innerHTML is more a question of accessibility support then of conformance to any specific criterion. I imagine this technique was created to inform developers about the innerHTML problem. But itâ€™s done in a format that seems inappropriate for it; as a script technique.

For all techniques content can be generated using innerHTML, so limiting this to 1.3.1 seems odd. Also, this technique doesnâ€™t actually provide a solution to 1.3.1. If you were to insert a heading without header markup, that would be an accessibility problem, even if it was done using DOM. It would probably be more appropriate to scratch this technique as it is and create an article in which this problem is explained. This article can then be referenced to from other documents.

This comment is part of the project for the Accessibility Support Database.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: Leaving open, work in progress. Surveyed on https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/15thApril2014/results The use of innerHTML can support the creation of accessible content if it is used to inject structured accessible HTML. The use of document.write will output a string directly to a page, and is considered an out of date method of adding content. We acknowledge that SCR21 needs to be re-written to take into consideration changes in user agent/AT support. The working group also acknowledge that this is a wider issue relating to the use of accessible scripting techniques and WCAG. [1] The original commenter (Wilco) suggested a proposal for dynamic content to the group. [1] The suggestion in the 'WCAG Techniques for dynamic content' doc was surveyed by the WCAG working group ion the 15th April and overall got positive feedback. [2] There were some outstanding action items <Joshue> ACTION: Josh to ping Cynthia for some background on SCR21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01] [DONE] ACTION: David to connect with GOV of Canada regarding their objections to the discouraged parts of SCR21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02] [DONE] [4] As of July 16th, an ISSUE has been logged in the tracker so we can monitor progress - 'ISSUE-35: SCR21 and WCAG Scripting proposal' [3] As we discussed, we are moving this issue to the tracking system for issues raised by Working Group members. We will address this using that process. [1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/15thApril2014/ [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Techniques_for_dynamic_content [3] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/35 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014AprJun/0051.html; Resolution: Thanks for your comment. As we discussed, we are moving this issue to the tracking system for issues raised by Working Group members. [1] We will address this using that process. [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/35; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)