- From: C.Bottelier <c.bottelier@ITsec.nl>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:05:16 +0200
- To: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
- CC: "WAI (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Jon Hanna wrote: > > I'm sorry to be blunt but this isn't a question of accessibility, it's a > question of realism. > > You can use javascript to store information about what has already occurred > and to reduce network traffic in a manner for which you will be able to find > a complying enabling tool for just about every disability the user might > have. In a closed-environment situation I'd probably recommend doing just > that. > > What you can't do is use it and expect it to work in every tool in the real > world, or across every firewall and this has nothing to do with > accessibility in the narrower sense. Expecting it to work in the wild is > naïve to the point of lotus-eating. Blaming accessibility standards because > they point out this fact is childish. I think Its partialy correct. Not using JavaScript is more an is-it-supported and a security question than an accessibiliy isue. However with client-side scripting thinks an be done to make a page inaccessible. Think of a scrolling page title, altering the colours continuesly, chaning a font from large to small in a loop. Without client-side-scripting it is't possible to do. The cookies have nothing to do with accessible to disabled people. Its onlyy a support and even more a security thing. > The whole web-companies-can't-afford-to-do-their-job thing is just FUD. 100% agreement on this. Also author saying it a too large strain on their servers to do it server-side are missing the point. The client-side is an extremely hostile environment so the server-side has still to do alot. Only the network interface could frm a bottle-neck, but it either indicates theyre handling the data incorrectly (to much overhead) or the nework is not suited for the application. Christian Bottelier
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 10:05:30 UTC