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

RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:28:18 -0500 (EST)
To: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
cc: 'Ramón Corominas' <listas@ramoncorominas.com>, 'Michael Gower' <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, 'David Hilbert Poehlman' <poehlman1@comcast.net>, 'W3C WAI ig' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.1212142126290.19123@server1.shellworld.net>
I do agree, and I side with Harry's first point.
you may use Javascript, but not without doing it in an accessible way, 
and not by declaring a technology baseline on a public service site.
Thanks all,

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Roger Hudson wrote:

> 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 02:28:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:47 UTC