Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

On 13 December 2012 18:16, Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@whatsock.com>wrote:


> It is possible to make fully accessible websites that don't use JavaScript
> at all, and if we expect the web to regress back to the way it was back in
> the 90's, then this is reasonable. Right now though, you will be hard
> pressed to find any public facing corporate website anywhere that does not
> use JavaScript at all.
>
>

I don't think anyone is suggesting for "the web to regress back to the way
it was back in the 90's".
However, if the JavaScript we use to provide sophisticated functionality
that will make the website more usable for a large proportion of users,
does not function when a user whose browser/AT does not support it, then
this user will still find the site inaccessible. As designers/developers we
must provide means for these users to also have access to this
functionality, otherwise we and our website fails.



> If ARIA roles are the proposed standard for the future, which I think is
> an excellent idea for future accessibility, that means that all of the
> supporting attributes have to be accepted as well, such as aria-selected,
> aria-checked, aria-pressed, aria-activedescendant, and so on, all of which
> have to be controlled using JavaScript.
>

I'm not sure that ARIA was ever intended to be the future of accessibility.
I have always understood it to be bridging technology. Rue the day when
ARIA becomes the standard, rather than the browser or user agent's
accessibility APIs.


Kind regards
Harry