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: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:46:58 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200602022146.k12LkwV02260@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

> 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.

How do you create a page that that submits on changing a select 
element, but doesn't have a submit button.  That's a very typical
client requirement.  (Although it is not strictly a scripting issue,
another common requirement is to not have a submit button in cases
where IE, auto-submits, but the HTML specification does not mandate
that behaviour.)  Note that the code to delete the submit button is
relatively complicated and could, itself, fail.

> helpful, it would be much more helpful if people were simply told to
> ensure their page works when is scripting is disabled.

But that is typically not a client requirement, so a programmer typically
has no budget for doing that.   The real solution is to convince the clients,
and that has to come from above, but, in the meantime, I would suggest that
a lot of use of <noscript> is indicative of people doing their best within

Any rule that requires noscript is overzealous, one can insist on having
explicit submit buttons.  (More of a problem is the common design where
the form that gets submitted is an invisible one.)  However, submit button
free designs are so attractive that clients will insist on them.
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 05:40:28 UTC

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