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: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:07:04 +0000
Message-ID: <851c8d310602021307oa22248h8890b2d2ea4ccf92@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

n 2/2/06, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In a market economy...
> >
> > Well yes, but there isn't any point in pretending that the poor
> > programming is good because you don't have the chance to do things the
> > right way.
>
> But it is better than what the client wanted, which was something that
> would fail completely in Lynx.

Any competent scripter who can make an accessible site with a
<NOSCRIPT> element could have made just as an accessible site without
it for less cost to the client, not doing so is bad programming,
because it ignores the possibility that scripts can fail.

The bigger problem though is the accessibility checkers, and the WCAG
documents which continue down this myth that using NOSCRIPT element is
helpful, it would be much more helpful if people were simply told to
ensure their page works when is scripting is disabled.

Jim.
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 21:07:20 GMT

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