- From: Angela Hilton <angela.hilton@umist.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:47:55 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Mike I'm inclined to agree with your first point - as a designer I want to create an attractive, intuitive, uncluttered and usable web page. On the other hand I want to ensure that that page doesn't exclude anyone for any reason. With that in mind - do we think it's acceptable to go ahead and use the JavaScript menu - and apply the NOSCRIPT element? ange *********************************** Angela K Hilton Web & E-Learning Officer ISD, UMIST Tel: 0161 200 3389 *********************************** -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Isofarro Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:59 To: Scarlett Julian (ED); 'Angela Hilton'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: Re: Javascript From: Scarlett Julian (ED) Subject: RE: Javascript > I generally use my browser (currently Opera 7.1) with javascript disabled so if I visited > a site with menus that you're talking about I'd be stuck. Unless of course you provided > text-only equivalent links but then what's the point - may as well make the first set > accessible in the first place. (IMO) The point is that dynamic dropdown menus (DHTML) improve the look and feel of a website site, allowing you to have more navigational scope without overpowering the visitor with options. The moment you say "you might as well just have text-only links" is the same moment when web designers see accessibility as nothing more than text-only websites - you are only advocating the myth some of us are working hard to dispell. Recall that accessibility is about providing _alternatives_ to non-textual or dynamic content where practical - not _replacing_ them with text-only non-dynamic components. Naturally in the case of DHTML menus, there is a graceful fallback in the noscript element, so a DHTML menu can be accessible by providing an alternative. Mike.
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 08:47:57 UTC