- From: Andrew Arch <amja@optushome.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:41:32 +1100
- To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <000801c1c360$c5313e20$ca2ba4cb@vic.optushome.com.au>
FEATURE: JavaScript and Accessibility As MSNBC found for their Olympics.com site, relying solely on JavaScript to access your site is an accessibility barrier. Using JavaScript to enhance the Web browsing experience is great, but designing sites that rely solely on JavaScript for users to display and navigate your site should be used only in situations where you know who your users are (like an intranet for example). Case in point, CNET's download.com. http://www.download.com/ Today, as I was updating an old Mac at an office, I wanted to upgrade the browser. The Mac had versions 2.1 and 3.X of Internet Explorer installed. 2.1 is ancient, but very fast, and without scripting. 3.X is small and fast and has scripting built in. You'd think that when upgrading your browser, download sites would have simple straightforward hypertext links to download new browsers. Not in this case. The link to download Netscape 4.08 (the newest browser that would work on this particular machine) relied on JavaScript to work. No joy with IE 2.1. Trying the link with IE 3.01 with scripting turned on spawned a JScript error, and the page displayed as a large gray box. This is one case where you'd think that designers would realize that older browsers upgrading to a newer browser, might not have JavaScript or the latest version of JavaScript. The best use of JavaScript is to enhance the user's experience, and/or save them clicks and calculations. Judicious layering of JavaScripts over (X)HTML is a user-friendly and accessible way to design pages. Gizmos like menus, news flippers, and navigation buttons that degrade to static links take more work, but are worth it for user satisfaction. (Not to mention avoiding accessibility reviews like this one). I eventually found the browser at Netscape.com, but a less experienced user would probably give up in frustration. Frustrated users is perhaps an unintended consequence of inaccessible design. Delighted users is a better goal. By designing your sites to gracefully degrade, while providing what Jeffrey Zeldman calls "forward compatibility" you can ensure that your sites will work with the widest possible audience. Addendum: Evolt.org story on JavaScript and link design: http://evolt.org/article/Links_and_JavaScript_Living_Together_in_Harmony/17/ 20938/ W3C WAI http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ AT&T Web Design http://www.att.com/style/wc_access.html Kimihia: Bad Web Design: JavaScript dependence http://kimihia.org.nz/articles/javascript/ ====================================== Source: http://www.webreference.com/new/020221.html
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: JavaScript_and_Accessibility_-_WebReference_Update_-_020221.url
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 04:48:15 UTC