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 20:33:47 +0000
Message-ID: <50D0D32B.7000400@splintered.co.uk>
To: accessys@smart.net
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 18/12/2012 19:50, accessys@smart.net wrote:
>
> 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.

If it's not coded properly, then it fails WCAG 2.0's success criteria. 
I'm failing to see what you're driving to here? Badly coded HTML or CSS 
can have just the same adverse effect, and that will also fail WCAG 
2.0's SCs.

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 20:34:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 20:34:12 GMT