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 21:06:43 +0100
Message-ID: <50CB86D3.5040907@splintered.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 14/12/2012 19:45, Karen Lewellen wrote:
[...]
> A woman goes into a
> McDonald's like restaurant  and says I  want a hamburger

I think the discussion has now almost reached the point of being lost in 
pointlessly flawed analogies...

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, David Hilbert Poehlman wrote:
>  If free
>> means the cost of a computer

...and this is the "reductio ad absurdum" end of any web content 
accessibility discussion: we start to bemoan the fact that people 
actually need a computer to get online...

The fact remains: if we're still talking about WCAG 2.0 and JavaScript, 
then JS *is* allowed as a technology, because it is accessibility 
supported: a) there are tools readily available to consume it b) there 
are known techniques to make its content work perfectly with those 
tools. If  "is javascript considered good wcag 2.0 practice?" was the 
original question, before we got sidetracked into those analogies, then 
the answer is "yes" with the proviso that the JavaScript is used correctly.

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 20:07:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 20:07:09 GMT