W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: RIT - Javascript

From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 08:28:57 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980501082857.00a086e0@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 01:11 PM 01/05/98 +1000, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>A suitable <noscript> would describe what the script does - in this case 
>'In javascript-capable browsers the active link graphic is highlighted, 
>analagously to text links changing colour'

There is no need to describe every single feature that a user is missing.
All this does is say "You're not good enough to see this page as I intended
you to see it, but here's a clue."

I regularly disable JavaScript to avoid annoying distractions, but that
kind of NOSCRIPT adds a worse distraction than unnecessary animations or
messages in my status bar.

There is no appropriate NOSCRIPT for image rollovers because NOSCRIPT is
only useful to provide alternative content for a SCRIPT that generates
content.  Since the vast majority of SCRIPTs provide dynamic interactivity
instead of generating content, the NOSCRIPT element is rarely needed.

Bobby is wrong for complaining about a missing NOSCRIPT.  That error was
based on an earlier version of the Guidelines Working Draft that was also
wrong, but has since been corrected.

-- 
Liam Quinn
Web Design Group            Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/    http://enhanced-designs.com/
Received on Friday, 1 May 1998 08:29:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:39 GMT