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

Re: Any examples of <NOSCRIPT>?

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:30:18 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200102210830.f1L8UI323417@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 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.

It's not absolutely inaccessible, but it is certainly, in my view, a
hindrance to accessiblity and given that most of the home page seems to
be given over to this lawyer's notice, and given its prominent position
(certainly not natural linearised reading order) may well stop some people
in their tracks, thinking it is yet another "please upgrade" web site;
I certainly got that sort of reaction the first time I accessed the site
in IE with Javascript off.  When I was considering sending a reference
to Section 508 to a blind Lynx user, I would have had to give a warning
that that notice did not reflect on the real content of the site.

It (and the popups) are examples of lawyers getting out of control.  I'd
put it in a similar class to the ten or so line signatures that people
send to public lists saying that it is a dire offence if the reader
isn't the intended recipient (anything sent to a public list is either
in breach of confidence or intended for everyone in the universe!).  They
represent hindrances to the normal operation of the medium just because
there is no formal law that corresponds to common sense interpretations
of the nature of email and web site links.

It's getting rarer and rarer for sites to be part of *the* web, but when
those that are still connected to the web only do so reluctantly, I'd
say the web was dying.

Maybe someone should propose an HTML element (or meta keyword) for
a list of URL prefixes that represent URL prefixes that are within
the control of the site, so that browser can generate warnings 
automatically.
Received on Friday, 23 February 2001 02:59:28 GMT

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