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

Re: to js or not to js?

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:48:25 -0000
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <b09j3b$j2b$1@main.gmane.org>


"Julian Voelcker" <asp@tvw.net> wrote in message
news:VA.00000623.03d42bdb@tvw.net...
>
> Hi David,
>
> > For those suggesting that one should rely on js being turned off in
order to
> > provide non js functionality, this problematic in that in many cases, js
is
> > needed and to have to turn off the js in a browser in order to achieve
> > accessibility to a site specifically would break accessibility for other
> > sites if inadvertantly left off.
>
> I try to take the stance that I will use js on a site, but will make sure
that
> it still works for people that have it turned off.  I do the same for
cookies.

but equally you have the fact that it's getting increasingly easy to disable
javascript on a per function/method basis, so it's not now (not that it's
ever been for clueful developers) possible to say "enable javascript" and
this will work.  It's enable javascript configured in a certain way, and as
long as there aren't any javascript bugs we're okay.

I imagine what you're actually saying is, use IE (and maybe mozilla) in
default configuration with javascript enabled and it will work.  If I turn
up with my javascript enabled Netrik or Pogo it'll likely just error, or if
I disable a few functions in IE (like .open() .focus() etc.) it'll also not
work.

Jim.
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 13:49:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT