- From: Matthew Smith <matt@kbc.net.au>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:17:10 +1030
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Jim Ley wrote: > Unfortunately many checkers assume that because there's a <script> > element in the source that there has to be a <noscript> element, this > is completely at variance to reality, indeed noscript is more likely > an indication of in-accessibility, as it means the author hasn't > considered that their script might fail. I only add scripting to a page that is already fully useable. The scripts add enhanced, but non-essential functionality to a page. I add script to pages through scripting - the script and any associated comments/documentation are added using document.write. This degrades cleanly - if scripting is not available, the user is not troubled (or confused) by references to something that is of no use to them. In my opinion, <noscript> is redundant in this context. (To go a step further, I have seen <noscript> advising that scripting should be turned on or that that the user should obtain an alternative user agent - ouch!) So, to go back to Jim's point, I don't believe that poor accessibility may be inferred by the lack of a <noscript> element in a document that uses scripting. -- Matthew Smith IT Consultancy & Web Application Development http://www.kbc.net.au
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 05:47:20 UTC