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 16:16:04 -0500 (EST)
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1212181614520.14937@cygnus.smart.net>

don't put words in my mouth.

it "May" be acceptable if coded properly and probably meets WCAG 2.0 but 
that doesn't make it "accessible"

Bob

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

> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:02:48 +0000
> From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice? 
>     [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
> Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:03:13 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> On 18/12/2012 20:58, accessys@smart.net wrote:
>> 
>> no argument, just stating the obvious
>
> cool, so we agree then that JavaScript is an acceptable technology that can 
> be used, if used properly, in light of WCAG 2.0...as that was the original 
> question?
>
> 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 21:16:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 21:16:37 GMT