W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2006

Reasons for not using <noscript> (was: Google Adsense ... not accessible)

From: Matthew Smith <matt@kbc.net.au>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:17:10 +1030
Message-ID: <43DDA85E.9060605@kbc.net.au>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Jim Ley wrote:

> Unfortunately many checkers assume that because there's a <script>
> element in the source that there has to be a <noscript> element, this
> is completely at variance to reality, indeed noscript is more likely
> an indication of in-accessibility, as it means the author hasn't
> considered that their script might fail.

I only add scripting to a page that is already fully useable.  The
scripts add enhanced, but non-essential functionality to a page.  I add
script to pages through scripting - the script and any associated
comments/documentation are added using document.write.

This degrades cleanly - if scripting is not available, the user is not
troubled (or confused) by references to something that is of no use to
them.  In my opinion, <noscript> is redundant in this context.  (To go a
step further, I have seen <noscript> advising that scripting should be
turned on or that that the user should obtain an alternative user agent
- ouch!)

So, to go back to Jim's point, I don't believe that poor accessibility
may be inferred by the lack of a <noscript> element in a document that
uses scripting.

-- 
Matthew Smith
IT Consultancy & Web Application Development
http://www.kbc.net.au
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 05:47:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:24 GMT