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

RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:11:30 +1100
To: "'Karen Lewellen'" <klewellen@shellworld.net>, 'Ramón Corominas' <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
Cc: "'Michael Gower'" <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, "'David Hilbert Poehlman'" <poehlman1@comcast.net>, "'W3C WAI ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004a01cdda69$80afab70$820f0250$@com.au>
I am sorry to say this whole discussion is becoming a little absurd, and if
I might be so bold as to suggest, almost troll like.

WCAG 2 took about eight years to develop, during that time there were many
opportunities for members of the web community to participate, raise
concerns, object and debate. And, I know many of the people who have
participated in this thread did so. I see little point in going over a lot
of this old ground yet again

WCAG 2 is now a stable W3C Recommendation and it does not prohibit the use
of JavaScript.

In my opinion the comments by John Foliot and Matt May pretty well say all
that needs to be said about this, so I think there is little point in
raising more diversions, red herrings or dubious analogies.

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net] 
Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2012 12:30 PM
To: Ramón Corominas
Cc: Michael Gower; David Hilbert Poehlman; W3C WAI ig
Subject: Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

what an interesting and limited concept.
how valuable standards that do not Foster choice and flexibility, working
within the reality of many if not most of those for whom they are written?

the end user is likely going to decide if something is modern based on if it
works for them.  There are people, even companies still using ms word from
2003 for example.
If I can as I have this afternoon visit without issue major news sites, New
York times, la times, USA today, wall street journal etc...using lynx, then
it is Modern enough for me.
I see you have left e-links and links off your list of non-modern browsers,
the other two I referenced.  lynx the cat as I shared now has an option that
can work at least with some script buttons etc.
However if the standards are not 100% uniformly adopted and applied, than
your definition is largely rooted in your opinion which is perfectly fine. 
I am not using your computer, and you are not using any of mine....which
equals choice.
Projecting that opinion where may be where the danger lies.  I prefer choice
over informing anyone living a circumstance that I is not my own that they
are using backward anything.
  Karen


On Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Ramón Corominas wrote:

> A better definition of "modern browser" would be:
>
> "A browser that supports the latest versions of the available, 
> well-established technologies and standards".
>
> Therefore, if Lynx has JavaScript support and if it supports its 
> well-established accessibility features, then Lynx is a modern 
> browser, independently of its release date.
>
> If Lynx has no JavaScript support, or if it has no support for JS 
> accessibility features that exist for years, then it is not a modern 
> browser, even if it was released yesterday.
>
> Using the transportation analogy: a horse born today is not a modern 
> vehicle; a 15-year old car (probably) is.
>
> Regards,
> Ramón.
>
>
> Karen and Lynx:
>
>>  every day several times a day I visit.
>>  mail.google.com
>>  using the latest edition of Lynx the cat something like September 
>> this  year.
>
>
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2012 02:12:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 15 December 2012 02:12:12 GMT