W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: JavaScript and Accessibility

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:44:48 +0200
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030612144448.A10371@web.extra.greytower.net>

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:23:46PM +0200, Jesper Tverskov wrote:

> But I would like to know if it actually benefits anybody:

  It would seem that it benefits people that use non-Javascript browsers,
  yes.



> 2) Why do some people want to use a no-JavaScript browser like Lynx?

  Why do some people like the colour blue when we have so many more modern
  colours like beige, and black ? Lynx is a very, very, VERY nice browser
  in my view. I like it - I use it all the time. It's my preference.

  If you can't afford the  needed for Jaws and Windows, then perhaps
  Lynx and Festival is an alternative; if not a perfect one. Or even
  Emacspeak. No Javascript - why should there be ?

  The *reasons* for why a person makes his or her choices can be many - but
  very, very often none of our business. To quote RFC 1958:

   "Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."

  A person choose the tool he or she finds most suitable or personally
  preferable. Lynx supports HTML *very well*. That is all that should
  concern us.



> 3) Why do we not have a similar guideline about scripts in Section 508?

  The ways of Section 508 ... I too would be interesting in learning why,
  as it is a natural guideline to have.

-- 
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 08:44:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:09 GMT