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 22:07:06 +0100
Message-ID: <50CB94FA.6090808@splintered.co.uk>
To: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On 14/12/2012 21:33, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> How can you, not living my experience, decide my technology is backward?
> smiles.
> Or how can you decide anyone is using something backward if it works for
> them?

But it clearly doesn't work for you, if JavaScript enabled sites that 
work just fine for a large portion of disabled users who use more recent 
tools don't work well in your tools...no?

Anyway, again: WCAG 2.0 allows accessibly-authored JavaScript. If the 
issue you're having is that you think this shouldn't be the case, then 
it's worth taking it up with the authors of WCAG 2.0 and see if this 
should get changed for WCAG 2.1 or whatever comes next.

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 21:07:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 21:07:36 GMT