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

RE: Any examples of <NOSCRIPT>?

From: Jim Thatcher <thatch@attglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:33:46 -0600
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>, jim@jimthatcher.com, "W3c-Wai-Ig@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <NDBBKJDAKKEJDCICIODLOEIMCNAA.thatch@attglobal.net>
I don't understand how you can say that they are providing "equivalent
content" with their NOSCRIPT tag. The NOSCRIPT content says that when you
leave the site with scripting enabled you will get an alert. You don't get
that alert when scripting is turned off. The scripting content is the alert.

It does NOT provide that "alert" content in alternative form --- or I am
missing what you are trying to say?

Please note, I do not think the site has accessibility problems; my
assertion on this, so far the only real life NOSCRIPT instance, is that
accessibility is NOT improved with the NOSCRIPT content.

Jim
jim@jimthatcher.com
Accessibility Consulting
http://jimthatcher.com
512-306-0931

-----Original Message-----
From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn@reef.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:48 PM
To: jim@jimthatcher.com; W3c-Wai-Ig@W3. Org
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 21:52:31 GMT

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