- From: David Dorward <david@us-lot.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:01:13 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 04:49:27PM -0000, Julian Scarlett wrote: > > Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was trying to say that > > if JavaScript degrades gracefully, then you shouldn't need to > > mention it at all. No, <noscript>, just nothing. > Forgive my ignorance but I rarely use client-side scripting so it's > not been an issue for me before but doesn't the lack of <noscript> > go against WCAG1 checkpoints? I've always been under the impression > that <noscript> was required for all javascript but maybe not so > long as it's device independent. Yes/no? 'Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: ... scripts ...' The above might suggest that, but it also says: 'This guideline emphasizes the importance of providing text equivalents of non-text content' The script you described doesn't sound like /content/. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 17:01:27 UTC