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: <>
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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:01 UTC