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

Re: RIT - Javascript

From: Lynn Alford <lynn.alford@jcu.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 11:08:14 +1000
Message-Id: <l03102802b1702118c233@[137.219.76.80]>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 8:28 AM -0400 1/5/98, Liam Quinn wrote:
>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."

This is why I was wondering about the effect of a noscript.  If the script
is merely flash, then all you are doing is saying slightly more politely
than is sometimes the case "Ha, you should be using a better browser."

>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.

This is what I was thinking.  In fact, this is what I told the person who
ran a page through Bobby that contained a rollover script.  I'm glad to see
that it is also the opinion of others.

Lynn


lynn.alford@jcu.edu.au  | More of your conversation would infect
lalford@nyx.net         | my brain.  Coriolanus
Flexible Learning Unit  | http://www.jcu.edu.au/~imla/
Game Review pages based at http://www.jcu.edu.au/~imla/games2.html
Received on Friday, 1 May 1998 21:07:54 GMT

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