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 21:20:36 +0000
Message-ID: <50D0DE24.7020201@splintered.co.uk>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 18/12/2012 21:16, accessys@smart.net wrote:
> it "May" be acceptable if coded properly and probably meets WCAG 2.0 but
> that doesn't make it "accessible"

So in essence you're saying: even if it meets WCAG 2.0 that doesn't make 
it "accessible"? Or am I misinterpreting your words again? I'm honestly 
trying to understand why we're still discussing this, in light of the 
question posed in this thread - which I believe we've not exhaustively 
answered as "yes" - unless your point of view is that WCAG 2.0 is not 
good enough to determine "true" accessibility, in which case I'd like to 
ask what changes you'd propose to WCAG 2.0.

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 21:21:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 21:21:20 GMT