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

Re: RIT - Javascript

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 09:59:13 +1000 (EST)
To: WAI <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980504094226.9745G-100000@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>

At 01:11 PM 01/05/98 +1000, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
A _suitable_ <noscript> would describe what the script does - in this 
'In javascript-capable browsers the active link graphic is highlighted,
analagously to text links changing colour'

Liam Quinn wrote: 
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."
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.

Nonsense. The NOSCRIPT above is perfectly appropriate. Imagine (for 
example) a Javascript capable browser, which has scripts temporarily 
disabled. The use of NOSCRIPT to the extent I have described would enable 
a user to determine whether scripts should be enabled or not. 

In addition, describing the action of a script is like using a LONGDESC 
for an image - although they may not alter the functioning of the page, 
they enable all users to understand how the page is designed to be seen.

However, rollovers being such useful things, my advice in the real world 
is not to worry about NOSCRIPT for them.

An example of where NOSCRIPT might make a difference is at

Charles McCathieNevile 
Received on Sunday, 3 May 1998 20:18:53 UTC

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