- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:35:03 -0500
- To: <jim@jimthatcher.com>, "W3c-Wai-Ig@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@reef.com>
ah, but that is the crux of the matter. I'd like to seem them do the right thing for us all, but this raises the question and now I am as confused as jimmie. I had thought they were ruling the noscript tag out with their rule. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@reef.com> To: <jim@jimthatcher.com>; "W3c-Wai-Ig@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: February 20, 2001 8:48 PM Subject: RE: Any examples of <NOSCRIPT>? At 05:24 PM 2/20/2001, Jim Thatcher wrote: >I really didn't expect any, and good for you for finding a "real life" use >of NOSCRIPT. This one at http://www.section508.gov, of all places, is >certainly real life and it is effective. What it does is provide text at the >top of the page that in effect says "we use JavaScript for XYZ and since you >don't support JavaScript you are out of lunch as regards XYZ." Actually I am not entirely sure it says that. It looks like they are trying to say "if you had javascript, you'd see <x>, but since you don't, we will tell you the content you are missing; in other words, the content of the popup." >I really think that is kind of an ingenious idea. "We're using JavaScript >and you don't get the benefit of it, so TOUGH!" Hmmm. I've seen sites that do that, I don't think this is the case though. I think they are trying to do it right, even though I think they don't do it particularly well. >I guess I would say the instance is certainly not ideal. The prescription >for NOSCRIPT is that authors will provide alternate content when scripting >is not available. This example does not do that because I read "alternate" >do be in some sense equivalent. >Do you agree? Not really. I think they are well-meaning but they did not consider overall usability, just accessibility. Surely this does indeed provide the content in an alternate form; it's just awful clumsy. I think a better idea would have been for them to provide the same functionality in a different way; for example, making each link go to the page in question with a pop-up (as now) if javascript is enabled, and making it go to an "exit page" if javascript is not enabled. That might work better than this <noscript> message, which I honestly would have put somewhere near the bottom of the page. But at least they allow you to skip it, I think. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Customer Management/Edapta Reef North America Tel +1 949-567-7006 _____________________________________ ALL YOUR BUSINESS ARE BELONG TO US. _____________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2001 21:35:22 UTC