W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2005

RE: Noscript equivalent for clearing default text input values

From: Julian Scarlett <Julian.Scarlett@eden.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:39:17 -0000
Message-ID: <9DC70EEAAFAE154AAA19F676DA93D1221E0D04@EDENMAIL.eden.gov.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

David

Thanks for making me laugh - nice sense of humour and I'll try and catch you on bad days more often ;-)

Anyway, really, I don't think default text is redundant - there are lots of people out there who really don't know how to use websites and clear instructions on what to do e.g. 'Enter search terms here' are pretty much the only way to get round this. Of course if you do that then some people don't delete the default values and the search goes pear-shaped. Maybe I *should* just change the <label> to 'Search - type your stuff in this box' but lengthy label text doesn't always work in site designs especially when it's a little 'quick search' box in the top corner of every page.

My question should have been where should the <noscript> content be placed but now that I've thought about it a bit more I'm thinking just below the input. 

BUT

Isn't this sort of javascript the scripting equvalent of an image that is purely decorative and can justify having an empty alt tag. Shouldn't there be some recognition of the fact that not all javascript is carrying page functionality and sometimes it's just a nice cosmetic add-on. I'm not saying that an empty <noscript> would be a good idea but there must be some common-sense in this and surely not all scripting needs a noscript equivalent. Does it? Does the type of scripting I'm talking about *need* a noscript? What happens if I don't provide one? No-one misses out on anything important!

J.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
 Security System on behalf of Eden District Council . For more information on a proactive email security service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 15:40:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:23 GMT