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

Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:59:56 +0100
Message-ID: <50CB30DC.3050509@splintered.co.uk>
To: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On 14/12/2012 14:45, Harry Loots wrote:
> On 14 December 2012 14:33, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk
> <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     In my view, it would be more akin to expecting every building to
>     also provide a supply of wheelchairs, as some people may not have a
>     wheelchair but need it. (same way people can use readily-available
>     browsers that work well with properly coded JavaScript, and instead
>     choose to use Lynx etc).
>
> Or, they could provide a ramp, and make it accessible :)

Which is the equivalent of using properly coded, accessible JavaScript, 
IMHO.

Taking the inadequate analogy further, asking for sites not to use JS at 
all because some users may not have readily available user agents that 
can deal with it properly is more akin to asking for all buildings to be 
flat, ground-level, as some people may not be able to use the ramps...

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]

www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
______________________________________________________________
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
______________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 14:00:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 14:00:17 GMT