Roman Neuhauser wrote: > # jochem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / 2007-01-17 23:20:23 +0100: >> Kevin Murphy wrote: >>> On Jan 17, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Brad Fuller wrote: >>>> #1) Submit the form (to itself) when a user chooses an option from the >>>> first list (using onChange=form.submit()) then with PHP query the >>>> database for the second set of options. >>>> >>>> #2) Use JavaScript to store all the values and pop them in when the user >>>> chooses an option from the first list (using onChange=someFunction(...)). >>>> >>>> I like #2. If you need a starting point, google for "javascript dynamic >>>> select list" >>> FYI... Neither #1 or #2 are considered good practice for >>> Accessibility/ADA compliance. If you are using a keyboard or screen >>> reader to view your website, it will always pick the first one in the >>> list and you won't have the option of even seeing the rest of the list. >>> Basically, anything that uses onchange or onselect will cause >>> accessibility issues. The only way to accomplish this is using onclick >>> or submitting the form. >> that stance basically negates everything 'ajax', flash, video and everything >> considered to be remotely 'web2.0' - is the 'low-common-denominator' case >> always the correct choice? > > And what about the my-ajax-is-longer-than-your-ajax (or whatever's "in" > right now (is "in" still a "cool" word?)) lemming-march mentality? I think 'correct' was the wrong word. still thinking what the right word should be. bare in mind I was playing devil's advocate rather than defending a particular stance. > >> I understand the importance of accessibility but the practicality of most >> peoples' job in this sector means satisfying the requirements of a client >> that demands such dynamic functionality such as the auto-selection example >> given here. > > That's typically a result of poor user requirements capture. :) of course the level of requirement/functional specification one can do is dependant on (at least) 2 things: 1. budget - building a small (<5000 euros) site leaves not much money for developing detailed specs, it easy enough to blow 5 grand on a preliminary investigation let alone something that resembles a fullblown spec. 2. client - can the client even comprehend the specs and the ramifications they entail, a small local business has no idea (or interest) in the problems, ramifications and technicalities of site building - he/she "just want's a website". > >> is there not an argument that screen-reader and [braille] keyboard software >> are somwhat responsible for being capable of 'keeping up' - given that an >> onclick can be handled why not an 'onchange' (in theory)? > > Yeah, wheelchairs can move along a sidewalk, so what's stopping them > from walking up and down stairs? no doubt the economics of greed - technically it possible to, I mean Honda built a freakin' robot that runs up stair and I seen multiple axel wheelchairs on TV more than 15 years ago (anyone in England know the 'Tomorrows World' program from the time when it was still about real science? ;-) that were capable of traversing stairs. but applying the extreme accessiblity mantra to the stairs analogy would mean making stairs more or less illegal. should we sue companies out of existence because they have a set of stairs? should stairs be illegal? > If you haven't written an open source > browser on par with mozilla for blind people, has anyone actually achieved that? actually my comment was aimed purely at commercial software, which, for now, AFAICT is the only real option for disabled people - and it's not a cheap option either, so the bar is set very high in the economic sense, disabled people in a low/no income are often shut out purely on budgetary grounds. should commercial vendors that supply tools to enable disabled people be held to a [very] high standard? additionally it could be said that the only feasible proposition is to make the the enabling tools adapt to the environment they are intended to make accessible? to return to the wheel chair analogy: it's completely impractical to replace all stairs in the world with suitable ramps but it is technically achievable to build a wheelchair that is capable of navigating a world full of chairs. > it's IMO polite to not > raise the bar for them unless necessary. KISS and all that. there are plenty of multi-billion dollar corporations that pay nothing more than lip service to accessibility - those same companies are the examples alot of my clients point at when telling me what they want. (I'm painting with a broad brush here) if I completely refuse to 'raise the bar' then I'm going to be flipping burgers at sooner than I'd like - my clients will go else where. so I'm stuck between doing 'the right thing' and paying the bills - all this is rather a moot issue in a world where millions of disabled people don't even have access to running water, let alone wheelchairs - so extending KISS approach all the way down the line I would say fuck what's happening online completely and let's all try to make sure everyone on the planet is clothed, fed, watered, is free for abuse/persecution and has access to basic tools that make life bareable. now I'm really playing devil's advocate :-> I have working legs and 20/20 vision, I live in a properous western country (that boasts some of the most liberal laws on the planet to boot) and I have a job that pays a decent wage! all this bla bla doesn't really do much for any disabled person stuck in a mudhut in the middle africa. rather a embarassing & painful reality I would hazard to say :-( okay I'll shut up now, enough OT blabbing from me. > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
