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

Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:16:09 +0100
Message-ID: <50CC6A09.6050806@ramoncorominas.com>
To: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
CC: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, David Hilbert Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>, W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Karen:

Your election of preferred browser has nothing to do with accessibility, 
because it has nothing to do with your disability (or at least you have 
not explained why your disability forces you to use Lynx, e-Lynx or 
whatever other browser. How is your disability limiting your options? 
You have options that apparently you could use if you wanted to, but you 
insist using text-based browsers for reasons that have nothing to do 
with your disability.

That's fine, of course you have your right to decide what browser you 
will use. But you are responsible of your election and you must accept 
the consequences of that decision. A non-disabled person can also choose 
to use Lynx (or e-Lynx or whatever). They are not "designed for the 
blind". They are ust text-based browsers, anyone can use them. But the 
non-disabled user will have exactly the same access problems that you 
have. Having an "access problem" is not the same as "having an 
accessibility problem".  It is the decision of the user what creates the 
problem.

Again, if you choose to walk or use a bike, you must accept the 
consequences of your decision, not blame the goverment for not building 
highways with sidewalks and cycle lanes.

Steve has already pointed it out: the "nonscript" issue is not an 
accessibility issue, because it does not affect differently to people 
with disabilities than to people without them. It affects "users that 
have no scripts", and particularly to "users of text-based browsers" (if 
they have no script access), no matter if they are disabled or not. Point.

That is also the reason that the "switch-off" button analogy is still 
valid. If you have the possibility to use scripts and voluntarily choose 
to turn them off, you are responsible of your decision. If you turn your 
computer off, you cannot blame others for not providing solutions to a 
problem that only you generated. And, of course, this auto-generated 
problem would affect equally disabled and non-disabled users that 
disable scripts or that have them blocked for security reasons or whatever.

Nevertheless, if you insist on using a text-based browser, you can still 
ask for better accessibility, but you should knock a different door: the 
browser vendor's door. This is not something WCAG can address. If the 
browsers you use are not able to read properly-developed JavaScript, it 
is clear that they do not comply with UAAG, and therefore you can kindly 
ask the browser vendor to add JS support and comply with UAAG. WCAG is 
about content and, although it includes certain conditions related to 
the availability of compliant user agents, it will never require the 
content to be accessible in EVERY user agent.


Countless efforts have been made in the past years to put together the 
developers' needs and the users' needs. It has been (and still is) a 
hard work to convince developers that accessibility does not affect 
design and innovation, and that they can create One Web that adapts to 
all, instead of multiple adapted versions for every specific need.

We cannot and must not go back to those old days when accessibility was 
seeing as the enemy. We must reinforce the idea of accessibility being 
an ally. It is our "a11y", indeed (wink)

But, if you really want to hurt accessibility, tell developers that 
non-JS versions are always mandatory. Tell them that they have to waste 
their time programming server-based versions of everything that can be 
easily done with JavaSript. Tell them that they have to limit their 
imagination and innovation because you chose to use a text-based 
browser. Taks an additional step and tell TV channels and radio stations 
that they have to transcript every multimedia content because you need a 
text version that you can read with Lynx.

And, if they spend their time creating new impressive (and accessible) 
experiences for the majority of users, instead of making a collosal 
effort to create almost-useless flat text versions for users that choose 
to use text-based browsers, then blame them for not being respectful 
with your right to voluntarily choose a non-UAAG-compliant browser.

Sure they will change their view of accessibility. But not in any good 
direction.

Kind regards,
Ramón.


Karen wrote:

> 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, Ram�n 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,
>> Ram�n.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>

-- 
Ramón Corominas
Accessibility specialist
Technosite - Fundación ONCE
E: rcorominas@technosite.es
T: @ramoncorominas
P: +34 91 121 0330
W: http://technosite.es
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2012 12:16:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 15 December 2012 12:16:51 GMT