W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:28:39 -0500 (EST)
To: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.1212130525460.35689@server1.shellworld.net>
Hi Harry,
May I have your permission to share the below?  it makes the distinction 
very clear indeed, and I am not sure if our list can be browsed by those 
seeking a broader understanding of  use of wcag 2.0
Karen


On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Harry Loots wrote:

> Steve Green wrote:
>
> If Bell declare JavaScript to be part of their technology baseline, then
>> the website does not need to work without JavaScript enabled. However, all
>> the JavaScript features must be implemented in an accessible manner.
>>
>
> This can be true, *only* if this solution was developed for sole use by a
> company, using the solution in-house, who are also using browsers, and/or
> AT that fully understand JavaScript, and all the functionality so provided
> is accessible to all users.
>
> If however, this is a public website, where everyone has the right of
> access and can expect to be treated equally, then if a user uses a browser
> or AT that does not support JavaScript, and is thereby denied access to the
> functionality offered via the scripting, then the site is not accessible.
> Ergo, the site is non-compliant.
>
> The clause of "technology baseline" is not an escape clause. It was
> provided to enable companies building in-house web-based solutions, where
> they have full control over the browsers and AT to save on additional
> development costs which may be required to make it accessible to all.
>
>
> Kind regards
> Harry
>
>
>
> On 13 December 2012 10:37, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Whether a user has JavaScript enabled or not is not an accessibility
>> concern.
>> A site that relies on Javascript for functionality is equally problematic
>> for all users who do not have Javascript enabled.
>>
>> Whether the Javascript that is used is coded to provide the correct
>> information and interaction behaviours  is an accessibility concern.
>>
>>
>> regards
>> SteveF
>>
>>
>> On 13 December 2012 07:52, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Green wrote:
>>>
>>>  3. If Bell declare JavaScript to be part of their technology
>>>>
>>> + baseline, then the website does not need to work without JavaScript
>>> + enabled.  However, all the JavaScript features must be implemented
>>> + in an accessible manner.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  There is no indication that this is a closed system.  Being able to
>>> declare a technology baseline sounds like a good way to avoid the nuisance
>>> of WCAG, if it applies to the general internet.
>>>
>>> Note that there is an increasing community of users of ARM based systems
>>> using the netsurf browser which has no scripting capability at all. That's
>>> as well as those who have to block it for security policy reasons.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 10:29:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 December 2012 10:29:03 GMT