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: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:50:12 -0500 (EST)
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1212181448370.8553@cygnus.smart.net>

the magic words are of course

"coded accessibly"


and even when one doesn't have to interact with a website how often is the 
javascript broken...  there is more to making it accessible than saying it 
must be so.

Bob

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> 
> 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 19:51:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 19:51:15 GMT