W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Any examples of <NOSCRIPT>?

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:35:03 -0500
Message-ID: <002c01c09bae$ed308a50$2cf60141@cp286066a>
To: <jim@jimthatcher.com>, "W3c-Wai-Ig@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@reef.com>
ah, but that is the crux of the matter.  I'd like to seem them do the
right thing for us all, but this raises the question and now I am as
confused as jimmie.  I had thought they were ruling the noscript tag
out with their rule.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@reef.com>
To: <jim@jimthatcher.com>; "W3c-Wai-Ig@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: February 20, 2001 8:48 PM
Subject: RE: Any examples of <NOSCRIPT>?


At 05:24 PM 2/20/2001, Jim Thatcher wrote:
>I really didn't expect any, and good for you for finding a "real
life" use
>of NOSCRIPT. This one at http://www.section508.gov, of all places, is
>certainly real life and it is effective. What it does is provide text
at the
>top of the page that in effect says "we use JavaScript for XYZ and
since you
>don't support JavaScript you are out of lunch as regards XYZ."

Actually I am not entirely sure it says that.  It looks like they
are trying to say "if you had javascript, you'd see <x>, but since
you don't, we will tell you the content you are missing; in other
words, the content of the popup."

>I really think that is kind of an ingenious idea. "We're using
JavaScript
>and you don't get the benefit of it, so TOUGH!"

Hmmm.  I've seen sites that do that, I don't think this is the case
though.  I think they are trying to do it right, even though I think
they don't do it particularly well.

>I guess I would say the instance is certainly not ideal. The
prescription
>for NOSCRIPT is that authors will provide alternate content when
scripting
>is not available. This example does not do that because I read
"alternate"
>do be in some sense equivalent.
>Do you agree?

Not really.  I think they are well-meaning but they did not consider
overall usability, just accessibility.  Surely this does indeed
provide
the content in an alternate form; it's just awful clumsy.  I think a
better idea would have been for them to provide the same functionality
in a different way; for example, making each link go to the page in
question with a pop-up (as now) if javascript is enabled, and making
it go to an "exit page" if javascript is not enabled.  That might
work better than this <noscript> message, which I honestly would have
put somewhere near the bottom of the page.  But at least they allow
you to skip it, I think.

--Kynn


--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Customer Management/Edapta
Reef North America
Tel +1 949-567-7006
_____________________________________
ALL YOUR BUSINESS ARE BELONG TO US.
_____________________________________
http://www.reef.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2001 21:35:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT