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

> Jim was suggesting that <noscript> actually implies poor programming.
> I'd disagree, in part because it is quite likely to be be put 
> in by an accessibility aware programmer when the client is 
> insisting that the page should do things that rely on 
> "Javascript" processing.  This relies on the no-scripting 
> case being a don't care condition for the client so, whilst 
> the programmer has exceeded their brief, with possible cost 
> implications, the client will probably never know that the 
> fallback exists.

The client won't know, and unfortunately, neither will users of JAWS.
Window-Eyes does read noscript content, however.
AWK