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: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:25:38 +0000
Message-ID: <50D0C332.4030805@splintered.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 18/12/2012 16:32, accessys@smart.net wrote:
>
> not addressed because I have been there and tried it,,  yes I have and
> use firefox, it is not the same and it is still a bandwidth hog.  why
> are you so hung up on this, do you sell javascript ???
>
> the WORLD is not the same as our world

Yanking this back, once again, to the thread starter question, it's 
clear that WCAG 2.0 reflects "a world" where JavaScript, when coded 
accessibly, is acceptable as a technology. Does this world reflect the 
WORLD? And if not, how do we change WCAG's future versions? Because, as 
was pointed out quite a few times already, the answer to the thread 
starter question was "yes".

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 Tuesday, 18 December 2012 19:26:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 19:26:01 GMT