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

Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:05:59 +0000
Message-ID: <50CFB367.3050601@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: 'wai-ig list' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
accessys@smart.net wrote:

> so what is the problem with supporting and allowing others to access and 
> USE the web via a basic system rather than glitzed up.  I have two cars. 
> both will operate and get me where I want to go.  one is a 35yr old VW 
> still runs fine and is well maintained, the other is a fairly new Honda.
> 

There are two different cultures on this mailing list.  The newer 
culture takes a narrow view of accessibility, that it is about allowing 
for those disabilities that are politically acceptable to business, and 
which can be solved by users spending money and learning to use tools. 
I suspect it is mainly composed of "accessibility consultants".

The other culture tends to have been around much longer, but obviously 
was not in a majority amongst those able to make policy decisions.  They 
take a broad definition of accessibility, and one which I personally 
consider to be much more in line with the origins of HTML, which was not 
as an animated graphical advertising tool (these already existed), and, 
in the original proposal, had to work on all sorts of hardware and 
operating systems and be conservative in its system demands (80x24 at a 
time when windowing systems already existed).

Generally good HTML/CSS is also good pure HTML, so CSS issues can be 
ignored by them, but scripting is used in ways which break the fallback 
to simple HTML.

Implicit in a lot of the pro-scripting arguments is the idea that more 
complex technology implies progress.  I think, to a large extent, the 
web has regressed, and very little of the original philosophy is left.

Incidentally, as we seem to like bicycle metaphors, the UK government, 
at least, is encouraging greater user of bicycles, and even lower 
technology, shoes, because the real effect of the "progress" from cars 
is poor health, through lack of exercise, and also global warming.  I'd 
also argue it has had undesirable social effects.

(Even shoes are often bad for the feet, and especially for young feet, 
the zero technology option is actually the best.  It's difficult to make 
a business out of a non-product, though!)
-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 00:06:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 00:06:30 GMT