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

Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

From: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:58:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CA++-QFfuqid2SxzuGoUB9QwV5UCnHy3H+EUyK_eSm4E5oFMFag@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: "ANDERSEN, Leon" <Leon.Andersen@fahcsia.gov.au>, Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>, W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On 18 December 2012 07:52, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> The entire thrust of this conversation has turned to "We (some users)
> should be able to use Lynx and still access modern web applications".
> No-one has come forward to counter the fact that those same users *could*
> use another browser, and then, with whichever screen reader they are using,
> interact with the web applications: no, these users are insisting on using
> a specific browser - Lynx - despite the fact that it is pretty much the
> only browser left out there that does not support JavaScript.


paranoid schizophrenia is a recognised disability - think conspiracy
theories, irrational fears, etc. Forcing people who fall into this group to
use JavaScript enabled browsers, against their wishes, would be highly
unethical.

But that does not mean that you should not be using JavaScript on your
website. It simply means that you should also provide an alternative.

Kind regards, Harry
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 08:58:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 08:58:56 GMT