W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]

From: Jim Ley <jim@e-media.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:36:48 -0000
Message-ID: <01fc01c14698$acabd440$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: "Matt May" <mcmay@yahoo.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> The user experience without script is prone to error and, quite
> abysmal, particularly in online grocery. It's not a viable approach for
> sites to design sites to function both with and without script and
> browser versions.

Why is it not a viable approach?  What is the specific reasons that makes
it non-viable, the ability the site developers is pretty much all I can
come up with.

> If it is possible to allow users of assistive technologies to
> work with existing sites, even where they require JavaScript, I think
we should
> absolutely show how to do so, and allow for a claim of compliance.

Of course we should, I've never said otherwise.

> [...we should be...] providing success criteria and compliance
> scenarios for sites which insist that the functionality of JavaScript
> necessary.

How can these sites insist that, there's no requirement for UA's to
support javascript, and there's no requirement to implement the relevant
parts of the Object Model.   Javascript is an excellent tool for adding
usability and accessibility enhancements,  of course if you could come up
with an example I'd have to withdraw all my remarks, but I've yet to see

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 10:42:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC