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: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:58:11 +0100
Message-ID: <50CED093.6060803@splintered.co.uk>
To: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On 14/12/2012 23:16, accessys@smart.net wrote:
>
> the problem lies with the "accessiblity-authored" javascript. just as
> PDF is limited to "properly authored" documents.  it is an education
> issue making sure the stuff is properly authored. and how is that done.
>
> and I'm a big fan of CSS,  no matter what is done it should degrade
> gracefully to a usable form.

But that is not a problem with WCAG 2.0. Again, going back to the 
original question, JavaScript *is* allowed as a technology, provided 
that it's used properly. The same goes for CSS, and even HTML - it's 
quite easy to make a completely inaccessible mess with them, yet we 
don't start talking about "is HTML considered good WCAG 2.0 practice".

If it's not properly authored in an accessible way, it'll fail various 
WCAG 2.0 success criteria. If it *is* authored properly, it will pass 
those success criteria. Like any other technology. There is truly no 
difference here, and JS doesn't have a special stigma attached to it 
(unlike the old WCAG 1.0 edict against it).

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 Monday, 17 December 2012 07:58:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 December 2012 07:58:45 GMT