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

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

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:37:22 +0000
Message-ID: <851c8d310601301537t7c648096ue3d434619649b9e7@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On 1/30/06, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > 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.
> Jim was suggesting that <noscript> actually implies poor programming.

Well not quite poor programming, as they are better than the default,
however you cannot know your script actually executed as you expected,
like David showed in his example, noscript is a boolean, and script
support is not-boolean.  Because of that the noscript cannot do
anything really useful.

with XHTML users now around, even document.write is not reliable on all ua's.

So whilst you may say they're better than the worst, however they are
not as good as the best, the best won't have a noscript element, so
the accessibility testers that report lack of a noscript as a failure
are missing sites more accessible than those with noscript.

In reality noscript simply shouldn't exist, it does nothing useful.

Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 23:37:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:33 UTC