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

RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:09:15 +1100
To: "'W3C WAI ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002701cdda69$2f079620$8d16c260$@bigpond.com>
Hi all, 

May I suggest, with all due respect, that we return to the substance of this
thread rather than debate questionable analogies and/or tangential issues?

Is JS considered good WCAG 2.0 practice? 

First, Javascript is not a practice. It is a ubiquitous, useful, and
enduring  scripting language  that is accessibility neutral.  WCAG includes
numerous sufficient techniques and failures that can inform implementations
of javascript to improve accessibility. 

Second, according to my interpretation of conformance requirement 4, and the
definitions of ‘accessibility supported’ and ‘relied upon,  if javascript is
implemented in a way that is accessibility supported  and this content is
‘relied upon’ for conformance, then the same content must also conform if
javascript is ‘turned off or is not supported’. 
(See http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#cc4,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#accessibility-supporteddef,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#reliedupondef)

It seems to me that part of the problem(s) addressed in this thread lurks in
the precision of the definition of 'accessibility supported'. 

Is it, for example, appropriate to deduce from this that the absence of
support (i.e., due to age or sophistication or even malfunction) for a
particular technology in a given user agent means that content cannot be
relied upon to conform regardless of whether that technology is implemented
in ways that are accessibility supported in other user agents?

The list's thoughts about accessibility supported would be instructive ... 

Regards,
Adam 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Simpson [mailto:alan@coolnerds.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 11:44 AM
To: Karen Lewellen
Cc: Ramón Corominas; W3C WAI ig
Subject: Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

You're right, it's easy to create a website with CSS and HTML alone. not
JavaScript. But an operating system is software that that drives hardware,
and hardware does nothing without electricity. It's not possible for an
operating system to do anything without power. It would be like trying to
drive a car without gas and a motor.


You can certainly power up a computer without an OS, those of us whole build
computers do it all the time. But you can't get the computer to do anything
useful until you install and OS (operating system).





On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
wrote:

> lol!
> i do not think those ideas match exactly.  One can create a site that does
not use java script.  one can not run a computer without power, although you
can power a computer in theory without an operating system.
> Karen
> 
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Ramón Corominas wrote:
> 
>> Karen wrote:
>> 
>>> if it is possible for it to be turned off then that possibility 
>>> exists because people will want to turn it off.  Therefore your site 
>>> should do basic things without it, end of discussion.
>> 
>> 
>> A computer has a button to turn it off. That possibility exists because
people will want to turn it off. Therefore, the operating system should do
basic things without power. End of discussion.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Ramón.
>> 
>> 
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2012 02:09:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 15 December 2012 02:09:43 GMT