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 15:58:15 -0500 (EST)
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1212181557590.14937@cygnus.smart.net>

no argument, just stating the obvious

Bob


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

> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:33:47 +0000
> From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> To: accessys@smart.net
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice? 
>     [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
> 
> 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 20:58:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 20:58:53 GMT