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: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:59:31 +0000
Message-ID: <851c8d310602030059p3ed503fbo76aa4959f1745c5b@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On 2/2/06, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> How do you create a page that that submits on changing a select
> element, but doesn't have a submit button.

You make the script button disappear once your script is confident
that it can perform the jump-y thing, it's trivial.

> Note that the code to delete the submit button is
> relatively complicated and could, itself, fail.

And if it fails, the submit button is left, no-one has been left
inaccessible, however if you put inside noscript many people have.  I
don't really understand why you want advocate that?

> > 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.

There is budget required! it doesn't cost more.

> I would suggest that
> a lot of use of <noscript> is indicative of people doing their best within
> constraints.

It's an indication of blindly following poor recommendations and poor
accessibility checkers and having the mistaken belief that they are
accessible.  I don't think that's good, it does nothing to improve
their understanding of accessibility it does nothing to teach them how
to provide the same without impacting either cost or timeliness of
delivery.

Jim.
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 08:59:46 GMT

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