RE: Accessibility problem on Blueprint form

[Curtis Hovey <curtis.hovey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Fernando. Thank you for helping us with this issue.

On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 14:22 -0400, Fernando H. F. Botelho wrote:
> Ok, time to embarrass  myself publicly :)
> 
> I use MS Internet Explorer 6 (yah, my screen reader does not work with
> Firefox, currently trying hard to migrate to Ubuntu+Gnome+Orca)
> 
> My screen reader is Jaws 6.10 and I do have JavaScript enabled.
> 
> The problem on the form was exclusive to the first field where I had to
> choose a project. I could not "see" the list, although there was some
> indication that there was a drop down box, also I did not know my choices,
> so I could not type on the text field that I also found there.
> 
> I saw the "choose" link, and clicking it the page reloads. I also see this:
> 
> "popup_iframe_field.target frame
> Select a project
> [cancel]"

Up to here, you are describing what we 'see'.

Following the 'select a project' instruction, we see another form: a
field to enter a part of a project name, a search button, and a list of
matching projects as HTML links below. Our intent is that by entering a
name, and activating the search button, you can choose a link from the
list to populate the text field in the original form.

Is JAWS relaying this information to you? This is a pretty complex step,
and one that is non-standard as you describe below.

> I am assuming that there is something non-standard about the html behind
> that, even though frames are considered evil by the blind no matter what.
> Btw, As far as I know, JavaScript problems are minimized as long as it is
> not used for visual effects like animations.  If here it is being used to
> populate the box, I really do not know what the problem would be as long as
> the box itself is presented with standard html.  Could it be done without
> frames?  Maybe having it populate when the page loads instead of by
> user-action?

In this case your browser and JAWS have handled the inline frame
correctly, but the frame's content was unintelligible. I think we do
need to make some changes to how this operates.

> Do forgive if any suggestion is technically naïve and thanks for looking
> into this.

-- 
__Curtis C. Hovey_________
http://launchpad.net/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part