AAA validation Checkpoint 6.3 - error found

[Ganesh]

I get error on this code when trying to check using http://www.sidar.org

Incorrecto <a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick="javascript:AddBookmark
();" class="footer_links">Bookmark</a></div>

Checkpoint 6.3 - Result: wrong

Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not
possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible
page. [Priority 1]

Instructions. | Page. | Code.
wrong Links: There are 2 links activated through links.

 

[Ganesh]

I get error on this code when trying to check usinghttp://www.sidar.org

Incorrecto <a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick="javascript:AddBookmark
();" class="footer_links">Bookmark</a></div>

Checkpoint 6.3 - Result: wrong

Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not
possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible
page. [Priority 1]

Instructions. | Page. | Code.
wrong Links: There are 2 links activated through links.

Also get the following error for the following code

Incorrecto <input name="ctl00$txtSearch" type="text"
id="ctl00_txtSearch" name="textfield2" onkeypress="return
searchKeyPress(event)" type="text" class="search_textbox" style="width:
150px;" />

Checkpoint 8.1 - Result: wrong

Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets
directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies.
[Priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere,
otherwise Priority 2.]

Instructions. | Page. | Code.
wrong Scripts: Device dependant events are used and there are no
redundant events.

 

[Jan C. Faerber]

        Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not
possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible
page. [Priority 1]

http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showpost.php?p=964935&postcount=6

 

[C A Upsdell]

I get error on this code when trying to check using http://www.sidar.org

Incorrecto <a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick="javascript:AddBookmark
();" class="footer_links">Bookmark</a></div>

Checkpoint 6.3 - Result: wrong

Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not
possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible
page. [Priority 1]

Instructions. | Page. | Code.
wrong Links: There are 2 links activated through links.

This has nothing to do with validation. Or with HTML. Try a pertinent
newsgroup.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ganesh

I get error on this code when trying to check using http://www.sidar.org

Incorrecto <a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick="javascript:AddBookmark
();" class="footer_links">Bookmark</a></div>

Checkpoint 6.3 - Result: wrong

Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not
possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible
page. [Priority 1]

Instructions. | Page. | Code.
wrong Links: There are 2 links activated through links.

It's not really an error, it's an advisory. It means that if javascript
is unavailable, then the script will not work. Actually, I don't think
this kind of thing works in any other browser except IE.

Most people know how to bookmark, and they will not be looking for a
link to bookmark. My advice is to just get rid of it.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

That appears to be an accessibility checker. Such checkers are largely
useless or worse, for various reasons. I once reviewed and tested some of
them, with rather disappointing results, see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/acctools.html and although things have
changed, I'm afraid the situation is still dark.

Authors waste their time in trying to understand confusing check results -
and even start modifying their pages according to outdated advice, e.g.
defining shortcuts for links with accesskey attributes (mostly detrimental
to accessibility!).

See also http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/bb.html which explains, among
other things, why real accessibility thinking is so often replaced by
official criteria which are in turn replaced by automated testers.

Here's a proposed quick start to _practical_, achievable accessibility:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/acc/

Now let's see...

The idea is foolish, and we don't need an accessibility checker to tell
that. "Bookmark me" buttons were popular around 1996 or 1997, and they were
dropped for a reason.

Technically, if you even wanted to create a JavaScript-based pseudo-link
that way, you would generate the link with JavaScript, so that it's not
there at all when JavaScript is disabled.

Huh? The wording surely isn't accessible.

It's not really an error, it's an advisory. It means that if
javascript is unavailable, then the script will not work.

Well, obviously not, but more importantly the _link_ (or pseudo-link) cannot
work but it is still there.

Most people know how to bookmark, and they will not be looking for a
link to bookmark. My advice is to just get rid of it.

I think it was in late 1997 when we used to say that a "Bookmark me!" button
or link was one of the sure indications that a page is not worth
bookmarking.

 

[Jan C. Faerber]

The idea is foolish, and we don't need an accessibility checker to tell
that. "Bookmark me" buttons were popular around 1996 or 1997, and they were
dropped for a reason.


I think it was in late 1997 when we used to say that a "Bookmark me!" button
or link was one of the sure indications that a page is not worth
bookmarking.

http://www.socialbookmarkscript.com/

Just a link ...
to tell something... huch -
When you have a frameset everybody is angry because you cannot
bookmark a special one.
Like on the java doc.
Now you have plenty pages without any framesets and specific urls with
ids etc. for each content
and at the same time plenty people adore twitter, facebook, youtube
and so on.
So a social bookmark script might be more interesting nowadays -
depends on your page and
on your taste for JS.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Just a link ...
to tell something... huch -

Please excuse me while I get bored to death. If you cannot tell what the
page is about, I won't follow the link.

When you have a frameset everybody is angry

Of course, and justly. Get rid of slimy frames.

 

[Jan C. Faerber]

Please excuse me while I get bored to death. If you cannot tell what the
page is about, I won't follow the link.

Well, it's not my problem.

Of course, and justly. Get rid of slimy frames.

Now I get bored.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well, it's not my problem.


Now I get bored.

You 2 wild-and-crazy-guys need to get out more...

 

[Ganesh]

I get error on this code when trying to check usinghttp://www.sidar.org

Incorrecto <a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick="javascript:AddBookmark
();" class="footer_links">Bookmark</a></div>

Checkpoint 6.3 - Result: wrong

        Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not
possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible
page. [Priority 1]

    Instructions. | Page. | Code.
    wrong Links: There are 2 links activated through links.

I have suggested to use the traditional Hold Ctrl+D message. Let's c